The Pathfinder Blog
The premier forum
for sharing best practices
in organizational, personal and
professional development
In our last Harassment article Attorney Rebecca Speer dissected "he said/she said" investigations. Today we'll get her take on how many witnesses to interview.
Deciding whom to interview, and how many people to interview, involves a careful balancing of two competing objectives: the need to be thorough and the need to protect confidentiality, Speer says. Speer is founder and principal of Speer Associates/Workplace Counsel in San Francisco.
How you strike that balance in any given investigation will depend on numerous factors. These might include the nature, extent, and complexity of the factual questions at issue; the number of witnesses who are believed to have information relevant to those issues; the fruitfulness of interviews you have conducted as you proceed through the investigation; and so forth.
In determining the scope of interviewing:
· Continue your interviews until you have satisfied yourself that you have adequately explored the factual questions at issue. Ask yourself, do important gaps exist in information you have gathered? Have you reconciled competing witness accounts? Have you adequately sought corroboration for the complainant's and accused's version of events?
· Investigations typically will be faulted for being too narrow (not involving enough interviews), not for being too broad. So, if a doubt exists in your mind, opt for a broader investigation, within reasonable limits, of course, Speer advises.
In choosing whom to interview, consider the following:
· Don't come up with a definitive witness list at the outset of the investigation. Instead, decide whom you will interview as the investigation progresses. Oftentimes, interviews with certain prospective witnesses become unnecessary as you successfully uncover information at earlier points in the investigation.
· In deciding on the most appropriate witnesses, ask: Who has been identified as having knowledge regarding a particular issue? Or, who is best-positioned to possess that knowledge? Be sure that you can articulate a clear rationale for selecting someone as a witness.
· You will need to ask the complainant and the accused, and other witnesses as well, whom they suggest that you interview. Be sure to ask the reasons they have suggested someone as a witness. Take that information into consideration as you decide whether or not an interview with a particular person is necessary or not.
Ultimately, no hard-and-fast rules exist for deciding the scope of an investigation; in the end, it all comes down to the exercise of good judgment, thoughtfulness, and caution, Speer says.
What's your policy on investigations? How about your policies on harassment and discrimination? Could they be among, say 50 or so of your policies that need regular updating (or maybe need to be written?). It's easy to let it slide, but you can't afford to backburner work on your policies—they're your only hope for consistent and compliant management that avoids lawsuits.
By Charles Munger Vice-Chairman Berkshire-Hathaway (Warren Buffet's Partner)
Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010
In the early 1700s, Europeans discovered in the Pacific Ocean a large, unpopulated island with a temperate climate, rich in all nature's bounty except coal, oil, and natural gas. Reflecting its lack of civilization, they named this island "Basicland."
Moreover, almost no debt was used to purchase or carry securities or other investments, including real estate and tangible personal property. The one exception was the widespread presence of secured, high-down-payment, fully amortizing, fixed-rate loans on sound houses, other real estate, vehicles, and appliances, to be used by industrious persons who lived within their means. Speculation in Basicland's security and commodity markets was always rigorously discouraged and remained small. There was no trading in options on securities or in derivatives other than "plain vanilla" commodity contracts cleared through responsible exchanges under laws that greatly limited use of financial leverage.
In its first 150 years, the government of Basicland spent no more than 7 percent of its gross domestic product in providing its citizens with essential services such as fire protection, water, sewage and garbage removal, some education, defense forces, courts, and immigration control. A strong family-oriented culture emphasizing duty to relatives, plus considerable private charity, provided the only social safety net.
The tax system was also simple. In the early years, governmental revenues came almost entirely from import duties, and taxes received matched government expenditures. There was never much debt outstanding in the form of government bonds.
As Adam Smith would have expected, GDP per person grew steadily. Indeed, in the modern area it grew in real terms at 3 percent per year, decade after decade, until Basicland led the world in GDP per person. As this happened, taxes on sales, income, property, and payrolls were introduced. Eventually total taxes, matched by total government expenditures, amounted to 35 percent of GDP. The revenue from increased taxes was spent on more government-run education and a substantial government-run social safety net, including medical care and pensions.
A regular increase in such tax-financed government spending, under systems hard to "game" by the unworthy, was considered a moral imperative—a sort of egality-promoting national dividend—so long as growth of such spending was kept well below the growth rate of the country's GDP per person.
Basicland also sought to avoid trouble through a policy that kept imports and exports in near balance, with each amounting to about 25 percent of GDP. Some citizens were initially nervous because 60 percent of imports consisted of absolutely essential coal and oil. But, as the years rolled by with no terrible consequences from this dependency, such worry melted away.
Basicland was exceptionally creditworthy, with no significant deficit ever allowed. And the present value of large "off-book" promises to provide future medical care and pensions appeared unlikely to cause problems, given Basicland's steady 3 percent growth in GDP per person and restraint in making unfunded promises. Basicland seemed to have a system that would long assure its felicity and long induce other nations to follow its example—thus improving the welfare of all humanity.
But even a country as cautious, sound, and generous as Basicland could come to ruin if it failed to address the dangers that can be caused by the ordinary accidents of life. These dangers were significant by 2012, when the extreme prosperity of Basicland had created a peculiar outcome: As their affluence and leisure time grew, Basicland's citizens more and more whiled away their time in the excitement of casino gambling. Most casino revenue now came from bets on security prices under a system used in the 1920s in the United States and called "the bucket shop system."
The winnings of the casinos eventually amounted to 25 percent of Basicland's GDP, while 22 percent of all employee earnings in Basicland were paid to persons employed by the casinos (many of whom were engineers needed elsewhere). So much time was spent at casinos that it amounted to an average of five hours per day for every citizen of Basicland, including newborn babies and the comatose elderly. Many of the gamblers were highly talented engineers attracted partly by casino poker but mostly by bets available in the bucket shop systems, with the bets now called "financial derivatives."
Many people, particularly foreigners with savings to invest, regarded this situation as disgraceful. After all, they reasoned, it was just common sense for lenders to avoid gambling addicts. As a result, almost all foreigners avoided holding Basicland's currency or owning its bonds. They feared big trouble if the gambling-addicted citizens of Basicland were suddenly faced with hardship.
And then came the twin shocks. Hydrocarbon prices rose to new highs. And in Basicland's export markets there was a dramatic increase in low-cost competition from developing countries. It was soon obvious that the same exports that had formerly amounted to 25 percent of Basicland's GDP would now only amount to 10 percent. Meanwhile, hydrocarbon imports would amount to 30 percent of GDP, instead of 15 percent. Suddenly Basicland had to come up with 30 percent of its GDP every year, in foreign currency, to pay its creditors.
How was Basicland to adjust to this brutal new reality? This problem so stumped Basicland's politicians that they asked for advice from Benfranklin Leekwanyou Vokker, an old man who was considered so virtuous and wise that he was often called the "Good Father." Such consultations were rare. Politicians usually ignored the Good Father because he made no campaign contributions.
Among the suggestions of the Good Father were the following. First, he suggested that Basicland change its laws. It should strongly discourage casino gambling, partly through a complete ban on the trading in financial derivatives, and it should encourage former casino employees—and former casino patrons—to produce and sell items that foreigners were willing to buy. Second, as this change was sure to be painful, he suggested that Basicland's citizens cheerfully embrace their fate. After all, he observed, a man diagnosed with lung cancer is willing to quit smoking and undergo surgery because it is likely to prolong his life.
The views of the Good Father drew some approval, mostly from people who admired the fiscal virtue of the Romans during the Punic Wars. But others, including many of Basicland's prominent economists, had strong objections. These economists had intense faith that any outcome at all in a free market—even wild growth in casino gambling—is constructive. Indeed, these economists were so committed to their basic faith that they looked forward to the day when Basicland would expand real securities trading, as a percentage of securities outstanding, by a factor of 100, so that it could match the speculation level present in the United States just before onslaught of the Great Recession that began in 2008.
The strong faith of these Basicland economists in the beneficence of hypergambling in both securities and financial derivatives stemmed from their utter rejection of the ideas of the great and long-dead economist who had known the most about hyperspeculation, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes had famously said, "When the capital development of a country is the byproduct of the operations of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done." It was easy for these economists to dismiss such a sentence because securities had been so long associated with respectable wealth, and financial derivatives seemed so similar to securities.
Basicland's investment and commercial bankers were hostile to change. Like the objecting economists, the bankers wanted change exactly opposite to change wanted by the Good Father. Such bankers provided constructive services to Basicland. But they had only moderate earnings, which they deeply resented because Basicland's casinos—which provided no such constructive services—reported immoderate earnings from their bucket-shop systems. Moreover, foreign investment bankers had also reported immoderate earnings after building their own bucket-shop systems—and carefully obscuring this fact with ingenious twaddle, including claims that rational risk-management systems were in place, supervised by perfect regulators. Naturally, the ambitious Basicland bankers desired to prosper like the foreign bankers. And so they came to believe that the Good Father lacked any understanding of important and eternal causes of human progress that the bankers were trying to serve by creating more bucket shops in Basicland.
Of course, the most effective political opposition to change came from the gambling casinos themselves. This was not surprising, as at least one casino was located in each legislative district. The casinos resented being compared with cancer when they saw themselves as part of a long-established industry that provided harmless pleasure while improving the thinking skills of its customers.
As it worked out, the politicians ignored the Good Father one more time, and the Basicland banks were allowed to open bucket shops and to finance the purchase and carry of real securities with extreme financial leverage. A couple of economic messes followed, during which every constituency tried to avoid hardship by deflecting it to others. Much counterproductive governmental action was taken, and the country's credit was reduced to tatters. Basicland is now under new management, using a new governmental system. It also has a new nickname: Sorrowland.
There's not much trickier than investigating "he said/she said" accusations. The key to dealing with these situations, says attorney Rebecca Speer, is to do everything reasonably in your power to uncover "corroborating evidence," that is, information that would support the complainant's—or the accused's—version of events.
"In my experience," Speer says, "Even the most starkly seeming he said/she said situations can offer ample opportunity for corroboration, and it's one of your main duties as a diligent investigator to seek it out."
Speer is founder and principal of Speer Associates/Workplace Counsel in San Francisco.
Corroboration takes many forms, she notes, and is not limited to the accounts of direct witness-observers to an alleged incident. For instance, she says, "If a female employee contends that, over a period of time, her manager engaged in offensive behavior towards her in private—outside the presence or earshot of anyone—I would want to know:
· Did the complainant complain to anyone about the behavior in question around the time it supposedly occurred?
· Did the complainant engage in any contemporaneous, or near-contemporaneous, conversations with anyone (e.g., close co-workers, a supervisor) that offer any insight into whether or not certain events occurred and, if so, precisely what occurred?
· Similarly, did the accused engage in any conversations or make statements during the relevant time period(s) that offer insight into whether or not he engaged in the alleged offensive behavior?
· Did anyone notice a change in rapport between the complainant and the accused around the relevant time period(s), signaling possible tensions or problems?
· Do any e-mail communications or other documents between the complainant and accused, or between either of them and others, provide information and insight into alleged events?
· Do any circumstances occurring during the relevant time period(s) (e.g., an extended absence or precipitous drop in performance by the complainant) suggest that the alleged events occurred?
· Does any other information (e.g., past complaints about similar behavior by the accused or, alternatively, a history of exemplary behavior by the accused) provide some support for the complainant's allegations or the accused's version of events?
· Does any information exist indicating any motivation the complainant might have to lie or exaggerate about the matters in question? The accused?
· Does the absence of information on the above fronts suggest anything to you? "
Ultimately, it's important to do everything in your power not to stop an investigation in its tracks when you encounter the "he said/she said" dilemma, says Speer. When you cannot identify any direct witnesses to alleged incidents, don't give up.
Instead, focus on the "ripple effect," that is, on the events or circumstances that you would expect to see if the alleged incidents occurred (or, alternatively, did not occur). Doing so will bring you closer to a comfortable determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to support the complainant's, or the accused's version of events.
In tomorrow's Advisor, we'll get Speer's take on interviewing witnesses, and we'll take a look at a unique HR policy program that will help you avoid “he said/she said” situations and many other day-to-day problems.
When an employee does not perform well and a manager needs to put something in writing, whether for a performance review or between evaluations, attorney Marie Burke Kenny recommends keeping two acronyms in mind: CONTACT and SMART.
Kenny, appearing again in today's Advisor courtesy of the Employer Resource Institute®, is a partner in the San Diego office of the law firm Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP.
C stands for "comprehensive." Make sure the memo is comprehensive in describing the history of the issue and why now is the appropriate time to write up the employee for poor performance.
O stands for "objective." A supervisor should get HR's input on an evaluation. A second set of eyes helps the supervisor be more objective. Supervisors should also hold onto whatever they write for at least 24 hours because that break in time can change their perspective.
N is for "no charity." No charity means not being dishonest for the sake of complimenting the employee. It's always a good idea to identify something the employee is doing well, but you should not tell an employee that he or she is doing something well if it's not true. Kenny says she sees too many performance reviews and memos that are filled with charity, which employees use against the company down the line in lawsuits.
T stands for "timely." The feedback has to be timely. It's wrong to write up an employee for something that happened 6 months ago.
A stands for "accurate." Make sure the facts in an evaluation are absolutely correct and independently verifiable through calendars, appointments, and other sources.
C #2 stands for "candid." Be straightforward and honest about an employee's performance.
T stands for "training." Any time an employee is promoted from a subordinate to a supervisor position, there should be training on how to manage employees. It can save the company a lot of heartache and money in legal bills.
S stands for "specific." You should specify what the performance issue is. If your sales employee is not meeting his or her sales quota, says Kenny, you could say, "You've only hit 40 percent of your sales quota for the last two months. At the end of the next two months, we expect you to hit 65 percent."
M is for "measurable." Whatever you're asking of the employee must be measurable. For example:
· Generate $50,000 in sales per month.
· Meet all weekly report deadlines.
A stands for "achievable." Managers may be frustrated that a sales employee is not hitting his or her sales goals, but they let it slide for a few months. Then, all of a sudden, they tell the employee, "That's it! I let you slide for a few months; you've been at 50 percent of sales quota, I want to see you at 100 percent by the end of this month"--and it's halfway through the month. Is that really achievable? Not likely.
R is for "realistic," which ties in with achievable. A goal is not realistic if it's not achievable within the stated time frame.
T is for "turnaround.” When do you expect to see the desired performance?
What's the most important letter? That's easy—T for "training." It's how you make all the others happen. Your managers and supervisors need training on performance management. Come to think of it, they also need training on hiring and firing—and everything in between.
Training is especially critical for supervisors who are new to the job. They don't know how to handle hiring, they don't know how to handle other basic tasks like appraising and firing, and that's to say nothing of handling intermittent leave or accommodating a disability.
It's not their fault—you didn't hire them for their HR knowledge—and you can't expect them to act appropriately right out of the box. But you can train them to do it.
A longtime employee who gets a "24-hour bug" every other week, usually on a sunny Friday. A sales rep who smashes quota one month but slacks off the next. The line supervisor who is "just a few minutes" late most days. Recognize any of these folks? If you're in HR, you do.
Problem employees. You're not ready to fire them, but you certainly have to do something. In today's Advisor, courtesy of the Employer Resource Institute®, we get answers from Marie Burke Kenny, an experienced employment law attorney and a partner in the San Diego office of the law firm Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP.
Do you have an overarching piece of advice to give to employers, right off the bat?
"Starting right at the interviewing stage, the most important thing employers and supervisors can do is to set clear expectations. Employees must understand in very specific terms what is expected of them.
"Many managers believe employees should 'just know' what's expected of them. That's a big mistake."
What should an employer do when an employee has been given clear expectations but still falls short?
"Early intervention is often the key. Supervisors tend to wait and stew on an issue, and by the time they raise it with the employee, they have become too upset about it."
Kenny says she often hears this from supervisors: "This employee is useless. From day 1, she's never done her job correctly." "So I say, 'It's been 13 months and you've never talked to her about this? Well, she must be doing something right.'
"Supervisors often respond by telling me, 'I don't want to put anything she's doing right in writing; I'm setting her up for termination.' That is a big mistake. Judges, juries, and arbitrators want to believe the employee was treated fairly, and they want to see documentation that illustrates that the supervisor gave the employee a reasonable and fair opportunity to turn work performance around."
Should an employer delve into the reasons an employee is not meeting expectations?
"Pursuing the reasons why is not the appropriate focus; instead, concentrate on what the performance issue is. Give the employee the opportunity to volunteer the information rather than say, for example, 'I know you're going through a divorce right now,' or 'Have you gone to a psychiatrist recently? You're acting manic.' Don't put yourself in a position in which you judge a person's life or diagnose his or her behaviors in the workplace.
"It's more appropriate to meet with the employee to discuss the performance issues and say, at the conclusion of the meeting, 'We've developed a performance action plan here—how can I help you succeed in this job?' That will usually unveil any issues on the employee's mind. The person might say, 'I need a leave of absence,' or 'I need to work part-time for a while,' or 'Actually, I'm seeing a psychiatrist and I'm on medication; we haven't fine-tuned the dosage yet.' Such comments trigger red flags about the employer's duty to accommodate a disability, but it's certainly not up to the supervisor to try to diagnose the reason for the employee's poor performance. Again, it's better to focus on the performance issue itself."
How do performance evaluations fit into all this?
"You never want surprises showing up in the written performance evaluation. I have heard supervisors say, 'This employee has been performing horribly for months, and I'm really keeping a detailed log on it. Boy, wait until he gets that performance evaluation—he's going to be blown out of the water.'
"Supervisors should not store up these comments. Instead, they should provide feedback on an ongoing basis so there are no surprises in the written performance evaluation."
There's little doubt that the most puzzling and frustrating trio in HR is FMLA, ADA, and Workers' Compensation. In today's Advisor, we'll answer key questions about the overlapping of the three laws.
What's the main issue with the workers' compensation, FMLA, and ADA overlap?
If a worker is on leave because of a work-related injury that qualifies for workers' compensation, the leave may also qualify as FMLA leave. Employers will generally want to designate qualified workers' compensation leaves as FMLA leaves in order to begin exhausting the 12-week leave allotment. The work-related injury may also qualify the employee for protections under the ADA (e.g., if the injury substantially limits a major life activity), in which case, an accommodation may be needed.
Does a workers' compensation injury always qualify for FMLA?
No. In order to constitute a serious health condition under the FMLA, the injury must meet FMLA criteria (e.g., it must require continuing medical treatment for a period of 3 or more days). An employee could sustain an injury at work that required a single medical visit—for example, a minor sprain. Workers' compensation would probably apply and cover the employee's medical expenses but, unless the sprain were severe enough to require continued medical treatment and to require that the employee be away from work for 3 or more days, it would not qualify for FMLA.
Does a workers' compensation injury or illness or an FMLA serious health condition necessarily constitute an ADA disability?
No. An ADA disability is an impairment that “substantially limits one or more major life activities” (caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, sitting, standing, bending, lifting, speaking, breathing, learning, and working). It also includes cognitive skills and the capacity to concentrate, remember, and reason, or having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment.
Many workers' compensation injuries are not “disabilities” under the ADA, meaning that they may not substantially limit a worker's ability to perform a major life activity.
What does it mean that workers' compensation and FMLA leave run concurrently?
If the employer designates a workers' compensation leave as an FMLA leave as well, it means that the normally unpaid FMLA leave will probably be paid to some degree because wage replacement will be paid by workers' compensation. It also means that the person may not be fired for absence, even if the person is out of work beyond the employer's cut-off absence day.
Can the employer fire the worker out on leave?
Workers' compensation: In almost all states, it is illegal to fire an employee expressly for filing for or using workers' compensation benefits. On the other hand, employers may fire an employee out on workers' compensation for violating a neutral and consistently enforced employee absence program or if the employee is not able to do his or her job.
A few states require that the employer make every effort to reinstate the employee to his or her former job or an equivalent job if possible. Employers should check the law in their own state.
FMLA: FMLA guarantees the employee's right to restoration to the same job or an equivalent job when the employee returns to work. Additionally, time out on FMLA leave may not be counted as absence at all. The FMLA also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for taking an FMLA leave. Therefore, if an employer terminates an employee during or shortly after an FMLA leave, the employer runs the risk that the termination will be perceived to be retaliatory, exposing the employer to potential liability.
ADA: A qualified individual with a disability is entitled to return to the same or an equivalent position unless the employer demonstrates that holding the position open would impose an undue hardship. An employer may not apply a “no-fault” leave policy (under which employees are automatically terminated after they have been on leave for a certain period of time) to an employee with a disability who needs leave beyond the set period. Instead, the employer must modify its no-fault leave policy to provide the employee with the additional leave, unless it can show that an undue hardship would result.
No matter what you do, your company is going to be featured on blogs, says Alison Davis. "So you have a choice as a company—either you lay out the story from your perspective, or you let someone else write it."
Davis, a communications consultant, recommends a thorough and proactive approach to social media on the Web. Davis is CEO of Davis & Company (davisandco.com). She made her comments at a recent webinar.
The first step is to set up collaboration with your communications group. Consider the following:
Monitor ongoing Web activity. Remind your communications people to be on the lookout for negative blogging or other social media problems. There are services and software that help you to troll the Web to see what is brewing out there, Davis says.
Develop a response strategy. Again, work with communications. If X, how will we respond? "We need to be out front on this. We need to tell our side of the story. Don't let someone else tell it."
Determine everyone's roles. In particular, clarify roles of senior management and "spokespersons."
Decide on your stance. You might want to be aggressive—what this person is saying is not true. Or you might want a gentler approach—this is our position on this topic. Or you might want to ignore the situation entirely.
Take a holistic approach. Davis suggests that a social media presence that displays a positive impression of your organization will counteract the negative that's bound to be out there. For example, says Davis, check out these possibilities:
· Ernst & Young®—Facebook page. It is designed for recruiting. Employees talk about life at the company and answer questions. The overall impression is that it's a positive site to visit, you can get your questions answered, and you'll be convinced that this is a great place to work. "It is a great balancing force—all these positive voices of former employees," says Davis.
· Best Buy®—their site just for store associates, Blue Shirt Nation, that establishes a sense of community. It's an interesting approach, Davis says. You can make connections, can ask other employees questions, etc. It's very proactive and forward thinking, Davis believes.
· KMPG®—their program to stay in touch with former employees. A number of firms are doing this, Davis says. The former employee could be a client, could recommend you, or could come back and work for you.
Balance freedom of speech and company guidelines. There's no one right answer, Davis says. How much freedom do you want people to have while making sure that they are using time appropriately? You want to be neither too restrictive nor too loose.
What sort of culture do you have? Casual golf shirt, don't monitor lunch hours, or do you have more "rules and guidelines and boundaries"? The culture can be reflected in your social media policy. "Make it fit," Davis says.
Still not completely sure how your organization can use social media? Don't know what to tweet or when? Have specific questions about how to go about it? You're in luck, because there's a BLR-sponsored webinar next week to answer your questions about Twitter and other social media sites.
More and more Americans and their employers are hopping on the Twitter bandwagon. A recent survey by Jobvite.com revealed that 80 percent of the organizations polled plan to use this social networking tool to recruit talent, with 42 percent of recruiters saying they already tweet to attract and hire candidates.
Couple those statistics with a recent Challenger, Gray & Christmas report indicating that Twitter is one of the preeminent tools jobseekers are using to find jobs—and it's no wonder that Twitter is so hot.
How To Break Sales Records
By Geoffrey James
February 11th, 2010
Want to break the sales record for your organization… or even for your entire industry? If so, here's the EXACT recipe:
· Step #1: Prepare to change. If you're thinking of breaking sales records, it's probably because you're already pretty good at what you do. However, it is impossible to break sales records simply by doing tomorrow what you're doing today. You're going to need to do something different if you're going to “amp it up” to the next level and beyond.
· Step #2: Research “best practices.” Breaking sale records means excelling at every sales skill. Go through your organization and find people who are the best at each skill. Learn how they think and how they execute that skill. Then incorporate that “best practice” into your own tool kit by writing down what you've learned, studying it, and practicing it… every day.
· Step #3: Measure your behavior. No matter how committed you are, you WILL relapse into your old behaviors, unless your new skills are reinforced. Figure out a way to measure each of your new skills and behaviors, so that you know exactly how you're doing. If your enthusiasm starts flagging, come up with a reward process that will reinforce the right behavior.
· Step #4: Keep evolving. As you measure, examine what's working, and what's not. Continually find areas where you can improve your skills. Look for additional role models; keep reading up on sales technique. Experiment. Find ways to use “down time” to improve your selling skills. Treat yourself like a top athelete — and then be your own coach.
· Step #5: Don't stop. Top athletes come in two varieties: the one-hit-wonders who have a great season and then rest on their laurels, and the all-time champion teams that break record after record after record. The champions know that if they set the bar higher, and continue with basic training, reinforcement, measurement and correction, they'll be continue to achieve at their highest level.
The above is based on a conversation with Duane Sparks author “Action Selling: How to sell like a professional even if you think you are one"
Social media usage is coming like a tidal wave, and employers need to be thinking about their offense—how to present themselves online—and their defense—how to respond to negative expressions about their company on blogs and rant sites.
Alison Davis, a communications consultant, recommends a thorough and proactive approach. Davis is CEO of Davis & Company (davisandco.com). She made her comments at a recent webinar.
Davis finds that employers tend to divide into three groups:
1. Those not using social media and would rather not
2. Those who are planning and starting to use social media
3. Those who are actually using social media
Davis says that most of her clients are in the middle group—feeling their way along. She strongly recommends that those in the first group, not even considering social media, start to get involved now.
Davis points out that traditional media—newspapers, TV, radio—are one-way streets: They produce, package, and present content, but the audience doesn't participate. Whereas in social media, it's a two-way street and everyone gets to play. It's fully participative.
"With social media, there is listening, learning, and sharing," Davis says. "The spectrum is vast. And it's growing so fast and expanding so fast, it is hard to keep up.
"You've got sites like Facebook for everyone, and then you've got specific, narrow networks, for example, for people who love to knit. You've got long blogs and then things like Twitter, the microblog where all messages are 140 characters or less."
The underlying context is that individual users can share what they are doing, what they think, their videos, photos, conversations, and comments.
Davis quotes a Pew Research Center survey that found the following percentages of usage over various age groups:
Age group
Usage
18–29
30–39
40–49
50–64
2007
67%
21%
11%
6%
2009
70%
43%
29%
16%
Increase
4%
105%
164%
166%
What's surprising is how fast the usage by older groups is growing, Davis notes.
Another survey, by global IT consulting firm Avanade, found that 60% of top 500 executives said that social media was not on their agenda. Their reasons were:
· Security: 75%
· Senior apathy: 57%
· Fear of unproven technologies: 58%
Another survey of 500 executives, done for Deloitte, found the following:
· 31% say their CEO is on Facebook
· 30% say social networking is part of their business and operations strategy
· 29% utilize social networking as a tool to manage and build their brand
· 23% utilize social networking as an internal communications tool
· 23% utilize social media to recruit employees
· 21% utilize social media to engage employees
· 18% have an employee-created Facebook group
· 13% post corporate videos on YouTube
Deloitte also did an interesting survey that focused on employees.
· 74% agreed that it's easy to damage a company's reputation on social media
· 53% said their Facebook pages are none of employers' business
· 24% don't even know if their company has a policy
· 49% say a policy would not change how they behave
The last statistic is perhaps the most interesting, Davis says. In general, she finds a lot of confusion about social media policies. People feel that the policy applies only to what they do at work and not what happens at home or away from the office. And, apparently, about half of employees, as indicated above, just don't care what the policy says.
Davis suggests that the biggest concern is negative publicity that could harm the company's reputation, result in loss of sales, discourage top candidates from applying to the company, and reduce morale within the ranks.
A secondary concern is the legal ramifications associated with potentially violating employees' privacy either with online searches or internal corporate restrictions.
By Steve Tobak
February 8th, 2010 @ 9:43 am
Yesterday, something happened that I wouldn't have thought possible. After the Super Bowl and its super ads, I actually watched the premier of Undercover Boss, a surprisingly creative reality show where, each week, the top boss at a big company poses as an entry-level employee.
Don't watch reality TV? Me neither. This is different. Have you ever cursed corporate's dumb policies? Ranted that the mucky mucks never listen? Wished the boss would work a week in your shoes? Well, be careful what you wish for; it's really happening.
Now, my initial impression of the concept was “nice idea on paper, train wreck in practice.” I've seen CEOs in the trenches; it's not a pretty sight. Trained in problem-solving, they tend to hone in on what's wrong: incompetent employees, their “good intentions” botched by middle management, their grandiose plans failing in practice.
Then there's the loose cannon factor: Who knows what they might say or do? Conventional wisdom says be careful when you put a CEO in front of customers because whatever he promises, the company has to deliver. Well, the same thing applies here.
So, as a management strategy, it's definitely high risk. At least, that was my initial impression. Having watched the show, I'd say the concept has merit — with some serious caveats. Here's my take on what went down:
The show begins with Larry O'Donnell (pictured), president and COO of Waste Management — a $13 billion company — telling his senior leadership team that he's going undercover to find out what affect their aggressive cost-cutting and restructuring is actually having in the field. One exec looks over at his peers and says, “Is he serious?” That seems to represent the collective feeling in the room.
Larry takes on a different job each day: cleaning out portable toilets at a carnival, picking up trash at a landfill, even doing the garbage collection rounds. Along the way, he picks up more than just dirt and recycling. He learns that one supervisor (Kevin) docks his employees two minutes pay for every minute they're late, that one woman (Jaclyn) is doing the job of three because of budget cuts, and that a female trash collector has to pee in a can to stay on schedule.
When it's all over, Larry shaves and returns to his corner office with a new perspective on the plight of his workers. He seems to have learned a valuable lesson: His relentless drive toward cost-cutting and productivity improvement may be backfiring. After all, if his employees are miserable, how well can they serve their customers?
That's a big step. As we discussed recently, admitting mistakes is indeed a key to leadership success.
That said, Waste Management is not a “growth” company. The way to grow shareholder value at a company with flat revenues is to improve operating margins by, that's right, improving productivity and cutting costs. And that's exactly what Larry's done since he took over operations in 2004.
So, should shareholders be concerned if Larry goes soft on cost-cutting — or is a happy company a productive company? Only time will tell. But from a management perspective, I'd say that Larry needed this experience to offset his natural proclivity to cut, cut, cut.
Larry also made some changes that I think were more about showmanship than solid management practice:
Bottom line: Some CEOs, like Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg, who began his career 40 years ago as a cable splicer's assistant, have a visceral feel for the customer and the rank-and-file employee. Those who lack that perspective should get out once in a while. But the cost of that education shouldn't include the undermining of an otherwise healthy management and organizational structure.
Image of Waste Management COO Larry O'Donnell courtesy of CBS / Dan Littlejohn
By Dave Anderson
Are your employees happy? Probably not, says Dave Anderson, an author and lecturer and president of Dave Anderson's Learn to Lead. The most recent survey by the Conference Board suggests that only 45 percent of Americans are satisfied with their work—an all-time low since the study was established in 1987. And unhappiness on the job has some very real consequences.
It is impossible to create a healthy company with unhealthy employees. Make no mistake: Unhappy employees are unhealthy employees—psychologically, emotionally, and sometimes even physically. Their misery infects everything they do. And it certainly prevents them from working at top capacity.
The good news is that great leaders can inspire and motivate their employees and help them find renewed passion for their work—even in a less-than-thriving economy.
Get clear about where you're going, and enroll others in the campaign. It's time for leaders to pull those dreams out of the mothballs and create a new, bold vision for their organization. They should also redefine performance and behavioral expectations (core values) for their people. These aspects of business are often watered down or completely forgotten about during a downturn. But the fact is, it motivates people to know where they're going and what's in it for them when they reach the destination—and what is expected of them along the way.
Without clarity of vision, core values, and performance expectations, you have chaos in the cubicles. People run on their own agendas—and unwittingly work against one another—because the leader failed to create a common vision that unites the team.
The tendency during a downturn is to begin nitpicking and second-guessing your people, making every decision and coming up with every idea yourself. This sort of micromanagement saps the energy and morale from your team. Increase the latitude and discretion of your best people and watch their motivation and creativity levels soar!
Business leaders love to celebrate the homeruns in their business. But in a downturn, there are fewer "big hits" to cheer, and much time can elapse between such occasions. Begin looking for the "little" things that people do right, and that go right, and celebrate those. Reinforce them publicly, quickly, and loudly.
Get out of your office and reengage with your people and your customers. Become more visible, accessible, instructional, and motivational, and eventually you'll become unstoppable. Ask more questions and give fewer answers. Questions engage employees and show that you value them.
Quite frankly, the biggest morale problem in most businesses today is rooted in the fact that the leaders of the organization have stopped leading. Instead, they tweak, tinker, tamper, manage, massage, maintain, administer, and preside—but have no positive impact on their people or culture. This is why the old saw is true: "A fish rots at the head."
Long-term goals are less relevant during a downturn because of uncertainty. Besides, when things are tough, you need to see something happen now. Shorter-term goals—daily goals—narrow an employee's focus and cause him or her to get into motion and take action today.
The additional structure that daily goals bring will create positive motion and employee energy that evokes emotion and shakes out apathy.
Dave Anderson is the author of the books If You Don't Make Waves You'll Drown, Up Your Business, and How to Run Your Business by THE BOOK: A Biblical Blueprint to Bless Your Business (Details at LearntoLead.com).
by Charles S. Jacobs
Next to perhaps a layoff, a performance review is probably the least eagerly anticipated event in the office, both for the manager and the employee. No one enjoys giving difficult feedback or receiving it. Worse yet, studies have shown that reviews rarely result in improved performance.
While positive feedback is enjoyable, it doesn't improve performance because we're internally driven to do the best we can. Negative feedback either has no effect or makes performance worse.
According to brain science, the reason is that rather than record our experience of the world, our minds create it. Each of us has our own unique version of events. Managers tend to see things one way and employees another, particularly when it comes to shortfalls in performance and the feedback we use to address it.
Here's how it works. Over our lifetimes, each of us builds up a self-image, and a positive one is critical to our well-being. Feedback in conflict with it creates an uncomfortable situation psychologists call cognitive dissonance. We are then motivated to do everything we can to reduce the dissonance, and we take the path of least resistance.
While we could admit we're just not as good as we thought we were, it's much easier to rationalize or discount the feedback instead. So we either blame the shortfall in performance on factors beyond our control, like defective customers, or we discount the source of the feedback. We are not the problem, we reason, but our bosses.
So the effect of the manager's feedback is not at all what is intended. For example:
“This review is an opportunity to offer you a little feedback to help you improve.” Your employee thinks: “This review is an opportunity to blame your failings as a manager on me.” You say: “Your performance is not meeting expectations in this area.” Your employee thinks: “God couldn't meet your ridiculous expectations.” Even just a seemingly objective observation doesn't produce what's expected. You say: “You didn't meet your sales goals for the year.” Your employee thinks: “How could anyone sell such lousy products?” Nor does the discussion of the objectives for the following year work any better. You say: “Here are your goals for next year.” Your employee thinks: “Once again, I'm being set up to fail.” You say:
“This review is an opportunity to offer you a little feedback to help you improve.”
Your employee thinks: “This review is an opportunity to blame your failings as a manager on me.”
You say: “Your performance is not meeting expectations in this area.”
Your employee thinks: “God couldn't meet your ridiculous expectations.”
Even just a seemingly objective observation doesn't produce what's expected.
You say: “You didn't meet your sales goals for the year.”
Your employee thinks: “How could anyone sell such lousy products?”
Nor does the discussion of the objectives for the following year work any better.
You say: “Here are your goals for next year.”
Your employee thinks: “Once again, I'm being set up to fail.”
When salary is discussed in the same meeting as performance, the employee hears even less of what's being said. They're focused on what's important to them, and that's their salaries.
The only solution is to turn management on its head. Overcome the perceptual conflicts by reversing the roles. Let the employee drive the discussion by asking, rather than telling, when it comes to both performance feedback and goal setting.
Have the employees do their own appraisal prior to the review. Then start the discussion not with your evaluation of their performance, but with the question, “How did you do last year?” Questions force people to come to terms with what is being said, so they avoid the problem of misinterpretation.
Where there are shortfalls, ask the employees to come up with ways to address them. Not only will they have some interesting ideas, they will be far more willing to own them and take responsibility for their success. The same psychological dynamic holds when employees generate their own objectives.
This isn't turning the asylum over to the inmates. Whether it's performance evaluation, development plans, or objectives, it's still your prerogative to decide if they are adequate. When you make your decision, however, it only makes sense to incorporate the employee's view.
Not only does this leverage the way the mind works, it's a much easier and less stressful way to manage. The responsibility for managing performance is placed where it belongs — on the employee. The manager is no longer the driver, but the coach.
But you can't ask questions the way a prosecutor cross-examines a hostile witness. The employee will become even more defensive. Since the tone of voice and body language must be in sync with the words, you must really believe your role is to coach your people to success. There's no way to fake it.
While this approach will work with the overwhelming majority of people, there are some that just won't own up to their responsibilities. Should you encounter one, you then need to deliver a straight message, but only as a last resort.
This doesn't mean that you don't hold people rigorously accountable for results. In fact, it's much easier when they're the ones setting the objectives and evaluating performance. But sometimes as managers, the best we can do for people is to give them the opportunity to pursue career options elsewhere.
Charles S. Jacobs is the founder of the Amherst Consulting Group, founder and managing partner of 180 Partners, and the author of “Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science.”
A lot of new supervisors fail, but it's usually not their fault. They simply don't know how to be a supervisor until you teach them, say Jonna Contacos-Sawyer and Polly Heeter Wright.
Contacos-Sawyer and Wright, both with HR Consultants, Inc., of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, suggest the following outline for briefing new supervisors about compliance. They gave their tips at a recent audio conference sponsored by BLR®.
Compliance is a very broad area that needs special in-depth training, says Wright. Supervisors have to have some knowledge of federal, state, and local laws, as well as be aware of the organization's policies.
The first thing for supervisors to know is that their status brings a big change—now their actions and inactions are attributable to the organization. Once employees tell their supervisor, the organization is legally on notice.
It's particularly important to stress that inaction is often as bad as action, says Wright. When supervisors don't pass information on to their managers or HR, it can cause real problems.
First, your training for supervisors must cover applicable laws, says Wright. There are the main federal statutes, as well as state and local statutes, in the areas of:
· Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
· Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
· Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
· Equal Pay Act
· Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
· Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
Be sure to cover protected classes:
· Race
· Color
· Religion
· Gender
· Age
· National origin
· Disability
· Military status
Also consider other classes, such as sexual orientation, that may be protected by state and local law, and also situations that may result in quasi-protected status, such as employees who have recently complained or filed a charge or suit.
Supervisors need to know that they may not allow harassment or a harassing environment in their departments. Also, let supervisors know discrimination doesn't have to be overt to be a problem. For example, not providing equal access to training and other development opportunities is discriminatory.
Brief new supervisors on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage and hour laws. Be sure to mention two particularly troublesome areas: work off the clock, and having employees volunteer their time. "You can't do either," Wright says.
Another common mistake is asking employees to make up hours in a different workweek. That's also forbidden.
Unemployment issues often crop up because supervisors haven't properly documented performance issues or other reasons for termination. Typically, says Wright, the reason given for the termination is poor performance. Then you look at the performance appraisals, and they all say "meets expectations" with no comments.
Wright often sees a failure to take all injuries seriously. In some cases, where there are incentives for no lost days, workers will try to cover up injuries. Your new supervisors must be trained to be sure that HR or safety supervisors know the details about accidents on the job.
Failure to document requests for leave and the reasons the employee is requesting the leave is another frequent problem for new supervisors. When they find themselves in the "Bermuda Triangle" of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), ADA, and workers' compensation, they should involve HR. It's too complex for them to deal with on their own.
Wright says, "Tell supervisors that the first thing HR will ask when you want to discipline is, 'What's your reason?'. If you don't have a reason, there will be suspicion that there might be a forbidden reason, like discrimination."
When there is a rule violation, supervisors must be trained to properly inform an employee of the rule that has been violated and what performance expectations are, says Wright. Follow progressive discipline, where appropriate, and warn the person of future consequences. It's also important to be consistent with discipline, Wright adds.
It's important to accurately assess performance on an ongoing basis. "Avoid rating errors," Wright says. As mentioned above, it's difficult to claim poor performance if the documents the supervisor signed all say "satisfactory."
Ric and Team,
Looking forward to working on the OE Team!
Sued? Here's the Worst Thing You Can Do
Here are four more critical actions you must take. Again courtesy of the Employer Resource Institute®, are "We've been sued!" tips 7 through 10.
7. Don't Create or Destroy EvidenceOnce you are sued, meddling with evidence, either by creating or destroying, is probably the worst thing you can do. So at the first notice of a possible suit, put a hold on any document destruction or deletion. If you do destroy what might have been evidence, the court may assume that the destroyed evidence would have supported the case against you. For sure, don't backdate or doctor records. It is almost certain to come out, and then the company's credibility is shot. If you create records, for example, a memo detailing discussions or incidents, date them the day you create them. 8. Prepare a Chronology of Events Employees with information about the facts of the claim should prepare a chronology of the events leading up to the lawsuit. This will save your attorney time, and you, money. It's very important that any memos you prepare be specifically addressed to your lawyer by name and marked "confidential attorney-client communication." This will improve the chances that the notes will not be subject to discovery.
9. Don't Apologize Don't contact the employee who is suing to say you're sorry or offer to make amends. This can end up hurting your case, since what you say can be used against you as an admission of wrongdoing. Let your lawyer act as the intermediary to explore settlement possibilities.
10. Consider Alternate Dispute Resolution Depending on your circumstances, it might make sense to offer to mediate or arbitrate the case. Your suing employee may already have signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes as part of his or her hiring intake process.
Explore alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options with your attorney. The ADR approaches often allow you to avoid a court proceeding and could therefore cut your legal fees and eliminate the risk of a large jury verdict. However, you can't force someone to use alternate dispute resolution unless there is a signed agreement to do so.
So that helps for when you get sued. But what about doing things right to avoid suits? Think about all challenges you have to worry about—COBRA changes, FMLA intermittent leave, ADA accommodation, and many more
What to Do When You Are Sued—Immediate Actions
Even if you follow all the best advice for avoiding lawsuits, eventually you're going to get sued. The actions you take the instant you know about a suit can spell the difference between a quick, inexpensive resolution and a prolonged, expensive one.
Here are the most important things to do when you first learn that you or your company has been sued, as outlined in an Employer Resource Institute® special report:
1. Be Careful of Dates When you are notified of a suit, don't procrastinate. Read the court documents carefully. The law requires you to file a written response to a lawsuit within a fixed period of time—typically 30 days from the time you've been served with the legal papers. Staying on top of deadlines is important because if you don't file papers on time, a judgment could be entered against you.
2. Hire the Right AttorneyGet your attorney involved right away. Be sure your lawyer has experience with your particular type of case and has worked in the court system in which the case was brought. When it comes to fees, don't be shy. Ask for an estimate of the range of costs involved. It's often tough for a lawyer to give a precise estimate of the expense of handling a lawsuit because there are so many variables that affect the cost. And, of course, at the beginning, the lawyer doesn't know any of the details that help to determine the validity or strength of the case. Nevertheless, try to work out a budget with your lawyer. Make sure your attorney agrees to consult you before major expenses are incurred or if the budget needs to be revised.
3. Notify Insurers Talk with your lawyer about getting your insurance carriers involved. If you have Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI), you will have some coverage. Your policy probably requires immediate notification and may give the insurance company the right to handle the case and settle it. (If the insurance company wants to settle and you want to fight, the insurance company's liability will likely be limited to the amount of its original settlement proposal.) Unfortunately, general liability policies usually don't cover claims such as sexual harassment and discrimination. But never assume that you aren't covered. Sometimes an insurer may agree to pay your defense costs and reserve the right to deny liability later, depending on what comes out in the lawsuit.
4. Assign Responsibility to One Person To avoid delays and confusion, appoint one specific person in your company to be the liaison with attorneys, insurers, employees, and others who might be involved in the case. The designated person should monitor the claim to be sure it's being handled in a timely fashion.
5. Caution Employees Remind employees who may have information about the case not to discuss the claim with anyone but your attorneys and their staff.
6. Organize Information Prepare a list of people who may have information about the case. Gather and organize copies of pertinent documents so that your lawyer will be able to make a quick review of the case.
There's an "obesity epidemic" in the U.S., and that means there's probably one at your workplace, too. Obesity is a natural target for wellness programs. The effects of obesity—from cardiac problems to diabetes—are dire, but they are reversible through exercise, diet, and nutrition.
What works best to reduce obesity? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) set out to find out what works in weight control. They identified six promising strategies and then developed a program, LEAN Works!. (Check out their program at cdc.gov/leanworks.)
"LEAN" stands for Leading Employees to Activity and Nutrition. It's a free Web-based resource that offers interactive tools and evidence-based resources to design effective worksite obesity prevention and control programs. It includes an obesity cost calculator to estimate how much obesity is costing your company and how much savings your company could realize with different workplace interventions.
The program is based on research findings from the Guide to Community Preventive Services. The Guide summarizes what is known about the effectiveness, economic efficiency, and feasibility of interventions to promote community health and prevent disease.
Promising practices are strategies delivered to employees through their employer that demonstrate a reduction in a "weight-related outcome" (i.e., weight, body mass index (BMI), body fat, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio) or prevalence of individuals who are overweight or obese.
As you can see in this chart, CDC divides its promising practices into three groups: environmental and policy, informational and educational, and behavioral interventions.
CDC's Promising Practices
Environmental and Policy
Informational and Educational
Behavioral Interventions
1. Enhanced access to opportunities for physical activity combined with health education
2. Exercise prescriptions alone 3. Multi-component educational practices
4. Weight loss competitions and incentives 5. Behavioral interventions with incentives 6. Behavioral interventions without incentives
Which of these promising practices deserve a place in your wellness program? Here's some more detail on what CDC found.
Corporate wellness programs show great ROI. And they are win-win—employees feel better and are more productive, and employers reap the benefits.
Environmental and policy strategies address the entire workforce or large groups of workers (not individuals) and target physical and organizational structures to develop worksite policies that support healthy behaviors. They are likely to be sustained for a longer period of time than individually oriented strategies.
Promising Practice #1: Enhanced Access to Opportunities for Physical Activity Combined with Health Education
Enhanced access to opportunities for physical activity combined with health education refers to practices that enable or facilitate access to physical activity programs, workshops, classes, and other resources in a worksite setting.
Such practices can include:
· Developing walking trails,
· Building a fitness center at the worksite, or
· Creating a par course (fitness trail).
CDC found five studies that evaluated the effectiveness of enhanced access. The studies' mean weight reduction was 3.24 percent.
Informational and educational strategies focus on the provision of information designed to increase awareness and knowledge as a requisite to motivate behavioral change.
These strategies present both general health information, including information about weight loss and maintenance, chronic disease prevention and risk reduction, and specific information about physical activity and nutrition.
Promising Practice #2: Exercise Prescriptions Alone
Exercise prescriptions involve a planned or structured physical activity regimen given to an individual or group that includes specific recommendations for the frequency, intensity, and type of exercise.
The programs reviewed typically recruit participants into voluntary groups at the worksites. After completing physical fitness evaluations, participants are placed in exercise training programs of mild, moderate, or vigorous intensity.
Promising Practice #3: Multi-component Educational Practices
Multi-component educational practices are aimed at providing information, addressing health promotion (e.g., healthy lifestyles, physical activity, and nutrition), and risk reduction (e.g., weight management, cardiovascular risks, and diabetes risks).
In addition to health education sessions, these programs incorporated components such as exercise prescription, nutrition prescription, and small media (e.g., brochures, pamphlets, electronic messages).
CDC found 24 studies that evaluated the effectiveness of multi-component programs, 17 of which measured weight. They showed a median loss of 5.2 pounds.
The CDC's strategies for dealing with obesity. Today we take a look at a unique wellness guide that could get you a 300% return on your investment.
Of course, it's not easy for most people to diet and lose weight, and then keep it off. Behavioral interventions are often the key to success. Behavioral strategies for obesity prevention and control focus on teaching behavioral management skills and structuring the social environment to provide support for people trying to initiate or maintain weight change.
Strategies often include individual or group behavioral counseling, and often involve co-workers, family members, and other intermediaries who are part of an individual's social environment.
Behavioral methods include:
· Modeling or demonstration
· Participatory skill development
· Individual benchmarking (i.e., goal setting and achievement)
· Providing feedback
· Providing incentives or disincentives
· Providing materials necessary to enhance the desired behavior (e.g., pedometers, food journals)
Promising Practice #4: Weight-loss Competitions and Incentives
Competitions and incentives consist of rewards for losing weight, making behavioral changes, increasing physical activity, or improving nutrition. The rewards can be in-kind, financial, or just the pride of winning. The incentives can vary in size and by type and can be used for:
· Screening
· Enrollment
· Compliance (i.e., staying in the program)
· Completing the program
· Maintenance of the changes after completing the program
Promising Practice #5: Behavioral Practices with Incentives
Behavioral practices teach behavioral management skills, modeling or demonstration, participatory skill development, and individual benchmarking (i.e., goal setting and achievement), provide feedback, and build social support for behavioral patterns.
Such practices are complemented by in-kind or financial incentives, typically given for participation and completing the program.
Promising Practice #6: Behavioral Practices Without Incentives
These programs offer the same types of behavioral skills development as the programs described above, but do not offer incentives. The typical behavioral practice consisted of one-on-one or group consultations with personalized goals or plans of action to improve employees' nutrition, increase their physical activity, or help them lose weight.
There's little doubt that the programming described above can help with obesity. And that's an important part of a complete wellness program.
Well-structured and well-run wellness programs generate ROI of up to 300 percent—music to management's ears! But the key words are “well-structured” and “well-run.” Poorly structured programs just spin their wheels—no health benefit and no positive ROI, either.
January 28th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
Building a sales pipeline needn't be expensive or difficult. In fact, if you take a systematic approach, and start by going after the low-hanging fruit, you can have a healthy list of prospects and opportunities in no time. A Sales Machine reader writes:
I'm the owner/operator and lead programmer of a small software company, basically me, a couple part-time programmers, and a 5-6 person technical implementation team. When I launched in 2004, I made some direct sales myself to some prior clients and over the years have added a few client a year … now I want to really focus on sales because I had stoppedl selling for the past year with the economy because people seemed to stop buying in general (obviously not the smartest thing to do .. but that's water under the bridge). Now, I'm going to invest in a targeted list to do some emailing and cold calling. So the question is: As the owner/president of the company, can I use all of your techniques the same way a pro sales person would? Should I do anything different because of my role as “president” of the company?
I'm the owner/operator and lead programmer of a small software company, basically me, a couple part-time programmers, and a 5-6 person technical implementation team.
When I launched in 2004, I made some direct sales myself to some prior clients and over the years have added a few client a year … now I want to really focus on sales because I had stoppedl selling for the past year with the economy because people seemed to stop buying in general (obviously not the smartest thing to do .. but that's water under the bridge).
Now, I'm going to invest in a targeted list to do some emailing and cold calling. So the question is: As the owner/president of the company, can I use all of your techniques the same way a pro sales person would? Should I do anything different because of my role as “president” of the company?
Well, the answer to your first question is Yes. Sales techniques are universal. In addition, since you're the “president” of your company, you're going to find it easier getting access to decision-makers than you would if your job title was sales rep. However…
Your challenge is more likely to be time management. Since you wear so many hats, you're not going to have all that much time to spend selling. And you've shown that you're easily distracted and would prefer not to sell when it's difficult to sell.
So your long term goal should be to “outsource” the sales function to somebody who can do it better than you. However, if you're determined to pursue this course, what you really need to do is to build a sales pipeline, because you let your pipeline run dry.
What's more, you're going to need to build that pipeline quickly, and without spending too much of your precious time upon it. The place to start is with the low-hanging fruit rather than prospecting far afield, which is what you'd be doing if you started with a targeted list.
Here are the four steps to building a pipeline on a shoestring:
Chances are that, by this point, you'll have more prospects in your pipeline than you know what do to with. If not, then move to:
Remember, the key to turning a lead (regardless of the source) into a real prospect is to research the lead before the conversation. You also must be able to communicate very quickly (as in a couple of sentences) why your offering is important to that prospect. (And that's not a list of features, my programming friend.)
January 27, 2010 by Jim Giuliano
Everyone was sure a new wage-discrimination law passed early last year would create a path to employers' wallets. Now, after several suits have been filed under the law, we know what steps employers should take to protect themselves.
The law is called the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Congress passed it to counter a Supreme Court ruling on the requirements an employee must meet to win a discrimination suit based on unfair pay.
In the case — Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. — the High Court said, essentially, that an employee had to file suit not more than 180 days from the time of the first alleged pay violation. The female employee in the case said she'd been underpaid for years because of gender and wanted to sue for back wages. The court said she couldn't because the 180-day clock started ticking the day she received her first paycheck — not the day she received her most recent paycheck.
Here comes Congress
Enter Congress. It wrote and passed a law saying just the opposite: that an employee could go back years and years, and file a discrimination suit asking for all the back wages that allegedly had been withheld all those years.
The law looked like a disaster for employers. Besides the threat of a lawsuit over some near-ancient dispute, the law also made for a recordkeeping nightmare.
An analysis of the major suits filed under Ledbetter shows, however, that employers aren't exactly defenseless — that courts will take into account reasonable steps to pay fair wages, and prevent frivolous suits. There are three major factors that can work in your favor:
The Spider's Tail
Once Upon a Time, as these stories go, there was a web building spider. Relatively unassuming, and yet she was tired of living near her mother. The oppression of her mother's environment, coupled with the enforced subservience to the free ranging wolf spiders with their long established territories prevented her from realizing her dreams. Looking to found a new dynasty based on her principles, she moved far away.
The journey was dangerous and the new conditions at first primitive, but she was the first web builder to find the new barn where she settled. Dropping down in the interior from the roof of the barn, she began work on her new web. Yes, there were some wolf spiders there, but she fought them to a standstill and established her new kingdom, growing old and fat and prosperous. She raised many daughters, sent some of them to schools of higher education and even had enough left over to send money and assistance to her feeble mother. Life was good.
In her dotage she used some of her largess to send a particularly promising daughter to the best schools. The daughter earned a Bachelor's from Websley, an MBA in Web Management from Flyvard and a Ph.D. in Web Construction from Bug College. The daughter returned home only to find that the primitive nature of her mother's thoughts was just too oppressive. Yet she was not willing to leave the safety and security of her mother's wealth and web to strike out on her own. So she remained, discontent and scheming, awaiting her mother's demise. The hoped for event soon occurred as her mother turned all eight legs to the sky.
All of her sisters recognized that she was the elite one and the rightful heiress of the web. Surveying her new kingdom, the enlightened spider began to make necessary (to her mind) improvements. Her first task was to direct her sisters to remove all the old and unsightly strands from the web. Over the years, many had become collectors of dust and debris. As the work progressed, the elite daughter began an inspection, directing a snip here and a tuck there. With all nearly completed she spotted what appeared to be the oldest, dustiest, dirtiest thread ascending from the center of the web into the darkness of the roof of the barn. In a great rush to remove this dirty thing from her now pristine web, she raced to the old thread and removed it herself. Of course, this was her mother's first thread, the central support for all that had come after. So the web collapsed, throwing the entire clan, including their cousins far away, into rack and ruin.
The Moral Don't be overly impressed with the untested ideas of individuals, no matter how academically qualified (or not) and be very leery of discarding the old tested and successful things just because they are old.
(c) 2010 Onward Education & Training LLC All Rights Reserved
By BLR Founder and CEO Bob Brady
Consider this scenario: An employee is a major problem. Regularly late. Misses deadlines. Difficult to deal with. Her supervisors have given good counseling along the way. The file is in good shape, clearly documenting the problem and what has been done. HR is involved, and the plan is to terminate the employee. A meeting has been scheduled.
Then, out of the blue before the meeting can be held, she files a harassment suit against someone else in the company, an employee who was in no way involved in the original problem.
Can you go ahead with the termination? What should you do if you want to do so?
That was the question posed by Tara Bedeau, of the San Francisco office of the Littler Mendelson law firm, at BLR's first annual National Employment Law Update, held November 2008 in Orlando.
Members of the audience had various suggestions:
· "Check the file."
· "Continue the investigation."
· "Put her on notice."
But Bedeau said that the key to whether you can consider going ahead is simple. First of all, are you certain there is no connection between the planned discipline and the harassment claim? Secondly, "How have you treated other similarly situated people?" she asked. If the documentation in this case is good, proving that there is no connection and that you've treated other employees the same way, it may be possible to go ahead with your plans.
"Consistency is the key," she said.
The claim of harassment elevates the risks, but Bedeau cautioned that you must still manage performance. You have to be confident that the discipline is totally unrelated to the harassment claim and that it is consistent with what you've done in the past. You still have a duty to investigate her charge and, if it is found to have merit, to take action against the offender. There is some risk.
The topic of Bedeau's presentation was "Preventing Unlawful Retaliation: Making Sure You're Headed in the Right Direction." And, as she listed the dozens of laws prohibiting retaliation, she made it clear that retaliation claims are serious. There have been numerous cases when employees have sued, lost on their original claim, but won large penalties because of retaliation.
Bedeau offered these tips for avoiding retaliation claims:
· Pay attention (to any protected activity).
· Preempt retaliation claims by quickly and effectively responding to all complaints of unlawful conduct or illegal activity.
· Have an independent, competent professional thoroughly investigate complaints.
· With retaliation claims, pay careful attention to the chronology of events, especially "action-reaction."
· Follow up and monitor situations.
· Make sure to deal separately with any additional issue that might arise during an investigation (e.g., a complainant's performance problem or misconduct). Mixing other issues with the complaint may set the stage for a retaliation claim.
· Never threaten retaliation against an employee—even in the mildest form.
· Avoid any negative emotional expressions about an employee's complaint, in statements or in e-mail.
· Respond quickly and thoroughly to any complaint of unlawfulness or illegality.
· Before you act against an employee who has engaged in protected activity, stop and review all of the facts.
· Have a good anti-retaliation policy that is well publicized.
· Work with HR and legal.
· Be wary of requiring a complainant to transfer or change jobs to resolve a harassment situation.
· Document. Good documentation is systematic, ongoing, detailed, and accurate.
· Train management.
Remember that whistleblowers are heroes to the public. Public sentiment will be against you if the case becomes public.
Tara Bedeau is an attorney with the San Francisco office of Littler Mendelson, a well-known and highly respected employment law firm. Her practice consists almost entirely of training HR and other company managers in employment-related matters.
by Cait Murphy
Domino's Chief Marketing Officer Russell J. Weiner
“Where's the love?” one woman asked scornfully. “The worst excuse for pizza I've ever had,” snapped another. Then there were the references to “cardboard” and “ketchup,” words that make any pizza-maker wince. But Domino's asked for them, and has even posted them here on a company-run Web site. The remarks, conceded a company chef, “hit you right in the heart.”
Pizza is a $35 billion industry and Domino's gets a big slice of that — about $1.5 billion. The chain, which was founded 50 years ago in Ypsilanti, Michigan, today boasts almost 9,000 stores that deliver more than 10 million pizzas a day.
But what Domino's is known for is delivering pizzas quickly — not for making the most mouth-watering pie around. So in 2008, Domino execs began to reinvent its pizza. At the end of 2009, it rolled out the new and improved pizza, and launched an ad campaign that features consumers ruthlessly bashing its old recipe.
Scratching a known and popular product to roll out a new one is risky — as is letting people tell the world just what they thought of the old one. BNET spoke to Russell J. Weiner, Domino's chief marketing officer, to gain some insight into the pizza transformation and the self-deprecating marketing campaign.
People may look at the ad campaign and see it as insulting. That's not the way we see it. What we tried to do was tell a true story — not brutal, but the truth.
Also, I spent a lot of time thinking about how to change the perception of people who didn't buy Domino's. We talked to them, and read their blogs, and this is what they were saying. And I knew that, other than my mom, no one would care about “new and improved.” So if we just said, “Hey, this is a new and improved pizza,” we would not have gotten the doubters to try it.
Emphatically yes! We have never seen the kind of reaction, from consumers and media, that we're getting with our new pizza and from our advertising campaign. Awareness is high; we're being talked about on blogs, in newspapers, on television news shows, and even the late-night entertainment programs. People are talking about Domino's, and more importantly, they're trying us — many for the first time in a long time.
When it was invented. Then in the early 90s, we went from 10 slices to eight and made a few small tweaks, but nothing like this has ever been done before.
The decision dates to early 2008, when we were having our annual strategic planning meeting in Ann Arbor, where the leadership looks five to seven years out.
Everyone knew — and there were a lot of analytics behind this — that we got high marks for delivery, convenience, and value. We thought the opportunity existed to get credit for taste, too. We know that a lot of people hadn't tried us since college, or had stopped ordering from us five, 10 years ago. The idea was if we could win back some of those people, that would be a big opportunity.
So a conversation started to take place about how much we could capitalize on strength while addressing a perceived weakness. This was something [chairman and CEO] Dave Brandon laid out. So direction from the boss, combined with direction from our consumers, made it a no-brainer.
We dissected our pizza, then reinvented it from the crust up. We tried scores of different sauces, cheeses, and doughs, with the idea of improving each of them. In each case, the market research found that the new elements recorded double-digit improvements in terms of purchase intent.
And we didn't stop there. While we knew which individual components tasted good, we had to make sure they worked together. I always say that two good-looking people can make an ugly baby; ingredients that work well by themselves can fail in combination. So you have to make sure that all the elements taste great together.
The closest thing to that was probably with the crust. No matter how much we worked on the dough, there is no way to get around the fact that most of it is covered with sauce and cheese. So we realized that the best way to improve the dough was to improve the part that was not covered up. It was when we put a garlic-butter-herb seasoning on the crust that put us over the top. This gave us the biggest jump in the data.
Well, we have our own chefs and kitchens here in Ann Arbor, but obviously our plan is to sell outside of this building. So we spent tons of time — about 18 months — and millions of dollars looking at all the options.
Then we went to various parts of the country and did random sampling that we could then project to the U.S. as a whole. In the beginning, we focused on evaluating each element. We would make the exact same pizza, and change, say, just the sauce. Then we would ask people to taste the two samples, and give us their opinion — was the sauce too thick, too spicy, too sweet, too this, too that? This is what we call a “guidance test” and we did it on each separate ingredient — dough, crust, sauce, and cheese.
Once we established a sense of direction, we went back for another round of testing — the five best doughs, for example, and narrowed that down. Then we brought in different combinations — dough No. 1, say, with cheese No. 2; cheese No. 3 and sauce No. 4, and so on. We tested 36 different combinations. We took the favorites and put these through a robust quantitative test, with both the general population and heavy users, and we identified a clear winner.
Yes, but the decision was not just based on data. This is Domino's pizza; it's our baby. When the data came in, it was compelling, and we put it in front of the leadership team. We put the pizzas in front of them, too. David Brandon told us, ‘I don't want to just see the data. I want to taste it.' His point was that this change should be something that people could taste for themselves. The data was important, but the product much more so.
We made the same presentation to the board of directors, having a kind of pizza party in the conference room at our headquarters. Then we did a road show telling the story to the franchisees and we had them try it as well. The results were incredible; the amount of support when we were out there was just remarkable. These were people who had spent a lifetime making pizzas and they were able to taste the difference for themselves.
Well, I can't say there were not people who were concerned. Heck, I was concerned. It's normal to have discomfort in making a big decision, but other than that, we had 1,000 percent alignment on doing this. The “New Coke” analogy that we've heard isn't quite right. The positions were different. Ours was a brand known much more for service; Coke was a brand known for taste, so they were changing a strength, while we were changing a relative weakness.
Our experts recommended an exit interview for every separating employee. Today we'll look at two reasons why exit interviews are important from a legal standpoint, and we'll take a look at an extraordinary program that will help you generate an exit interview protocol and dozens of other critical HR policies.
A well-thought-out exit interview can help an employer:
· Avert serious lawsuits;
· Gather critical feedback about salaries, morale, and management practices;
· Determine the causes of turnover;
· Gain information required by law; and
· Take care of necessary administrative actions.
The main purpose is to give departing employees an opportunity to express any residual feelings—positive or negative—that they have about their departure, and to offer their suggestions for how the job or the work environment might be improved.
Some companies draw a distinction between exit interviews (for employees who have terminated voluntarily) and termination interviews (for employees who have been dismissed). From the interviewer's point of view, the two experiences can be quite different.
In a voluntary situation, a properly conducted interview and signed statement creates a formal record of the departing employee's reason for leaving, so that he or she cannot later allege some form of discrimination or harassment.
In an involuntary situation, the exit interview may help avoid costly legal action by a disgruntled employee (or, other damaging or detrimental actions).
In some cases, simply providing the employee with an opportunity to talk about work issues with a professional, concerned interviewer may be enough to vent negative feelings and thwart the desire to file a lawsuit. Even if it doesn't, at least management won't be surprised when a claim is filed.
· Why are you leaving?
· What did you like most and least about the job?
· Did the job give you an opportunity to make adequate use of your skills and abilities?
· How do you feel about your salary and the company's salary structure? Were you paid fairly?
· How do you feel about the company's benefits and incentives programs?
· What did you think about the performance assessment process? Did you know where you stood in your supervisor's eyes?
· How do you feel about the quality of the supervision you received on the job? Were you watched too closely? Were you given clear instructions and expectations?
· Do you feel your work was appreciated?
· How did you feel about your working conditions?
· Did you receive adequate training?
· How would you rate this company as a place to work? Would you ever want to work here again?
If the exit interview indicates your company discriminated against or unjustly dismissed an employee, you should take action to reduce your liability. Immediately notify top management and your employment attorney. Remember, you can be found personally liable for discrimination and unjust dismissal.
How about your policies on termination and exit interviews? They're probably among 50 or so of your policies that should be updated (or maybe written?). It's easy to let it slide, but you can't afford to backburner work on your policies—they're your only hope for consistent and compliant management that avoids lawsuits.
The way you treat the people you terminate can make the difference between an ex-employee who is upset but moving on, and an ex-employee who is angry and calling 1-800-LAWYER.
Lin Grensing-Pophal, writing in Human Resource Executive, cited several tales that highlight what disgruntled employees might do:
· One made a false accusation of harassment that took months to unravel.
· Another flipped off a switch that the remaining employees didn't know about, thus disabling the corporate computer system and causing IT experts to spend 2 weeks chasing down what they thought was a computer virus.
· A third implanted a virus into his company's computer system that was timed to take effect 2 weeks after the employee departed.
And the list goes on—file deletions, theft of proprietary information, etc. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these egregious acts would not ever have taken place if the people involved had just been treated with respect during their terminations.
A recent article in Corporate Counsel points to another avenue of employee reprisal—damaging claims of whistleblowing retaliation and/or wrongful discharge. In the article, attorneys Russell Hayman and Jon Dean note that lawsuits which are in reality simple claims of wrongful discharge take on an aura of respectability when attached to a charge of whistleblowing or other retaliation.
Hayman and Dean offer the following suggestions for avoiding such claims:
Treat outgoing employees with dignity and respect at all times. It's not hard to do and it will pay off handsomely.
Have an internal company policy in place on how to handle terminations. You want departing employees treated according to a set, consistently applied process, the attorneys say.
Conduct an effective and extensive exit interview. Do the interview for all departing employees, whether the separations are voluntary or involuntary. Have two people perform the interview if possible, so there are two witnesses to the interview.
If allegations of wrongdoing surface, take them seriously. Inform management, and conduct an investigation. Demonstrate that the company takes all such concerns seriously and is committed to compliance.
Document all actions you take in responding to compliance concerns. If you don't act after you are on notice of a problem, your actions will become "willful" violations, the attorneys note.
Take corrective action if allegations prove to be true, or be prepared to show that the allegations are false. This minimizes your exposure to later claims of retaliation. Your careful attention to investigating mitigates any claim that the employer was "motivated" to terminate the employee, say Hayman and Dean.
Many employers believe that they can identify the most likely-to-sue employees, and so they take preventive actions with respect to those particular employees only. That's a mistake, say Hayman and Dean. First of all, your suspicions won't be accurate, because it's hard to predict who will sue and who will not. And secondly, consistency is important, so it's best to treat all employees the same.
Hayman and Dean are partners at the Los Angeles office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery.
Links
