Yesterday, Alison Davis discussed rant sites—the dark side of social media. Today, she shares proactive practices for controlling social media use. Plus, we'll take a look at a unique one-stop source for solving HR problems.

The best approach to keeping former employees quiet, Davis says, is to tie agreements about future behavior, non-disclosure, and so on, to a severance agreement. Keep the payoff for a date in the future, and make it clear, "If you violate this agreement, we won't pay you your money."

Davis is CEO of Davis & Company (davisandco.com). She made her comments at a recent webinar.

What about Employees with No Severance Package?

"If you don't offer severance, you don't have as many rights for controlling ex-employees. You can try to sue for slander or libel," Davis says, "but that's a difficult case to make because you have to prove damages to the company."

If an ex-employee who has no severance were to blog "I was fired, and here are the facts," you've got no basis for legal action, Davis says. If the person blogs, "I hated my boss," you've got no basis for action. If the person discloses "Here are my company's confidential plans and financial data," now that could be the basis for legal action, Davis says.

Proactive Steps You Can Take

How should you go about setting boundaries and guidelines for your employees and ex-employees? Start with your current employees, says Davis.

"There is no right or wrong answer about how to approach it; you have to decide as a company where you fall," Davis says. She thinks of it as color-coded:

Green—You encourage employees to contribute to social media sites. In other words, you decide that use of social media has equal or more benefit than risk.

Yellow—You acknowledge that employees participate and outline expectations—you may do this but not that, what you do at home is your own business except for this and that. In other words, you don't intend to prohibit use, but there are rules.

Red—No, you're not letting anyone engage in this activity. In other words, you are going to restrict employees to using company electronic resources only for business-related matters. This approach is necessary for certain industries, for example for defense contractors, Davis notes.

For many employers, the first level of interest is to ensure that the personal use of social networking websites or systems does not interfere with working time. In any event, when employees are involved with these sites, it must be clear that they are not acting as a spokesperson for the company, Davis says.

Finally, Davis says, "don't forget logos. That's a big one for many companies. You really don't want people splashing your logo all over their Web pages."

Social media. Just one of dozens of challenges on the HR desk—COBRA changes, FMLA intermittent leave, ADA accommodation, off-the-clock workers, just to name a few.

Social media is clearly the coming thing for hip companies, but there is a dark side, says Alison Davis, a communications consultant. She recommends that employers take a proactive approach.

Davis is CEO of Davis & Company (davisandco.com). She made her comments at a recent webinar.

Information You Thought Was Protected

Davis shared a story of Gannett, owner of USA Today. Gannet planned major layoffs nationwide, but intended to announce them only at the local level, so that no one would know the total number of employees affected.

Soon a disgruntled ex-employee began a blog to track Gannett's layoffs. He began to post the information on his blog. "We're going to add it all up for you," he said. He created a map that showed all the layoffs nationwide.

Unfortunately for Gannett, Davis says, when you lay off journalists, you lay off a group who are pretty savvy about how to find information, and how to present it.

The main lesson is that the blogger was able to aggregate information that Gannett expected to keep private, and there wasn't much Gannett could do about it.

How About Those Rant Sites?

"Rant sites are a level worse," Davis notes. She calls them “moaning and complaining" sites. They encourage what she calls "management stinks" blogs.

Take, for example, JobSchmob.com, she says. Here's a taste:

Screenvision Is The Worst Company In The World!!

"I worked for about eight months in advertising sales for Screenvision, selling onscreen theatre advertising. Warning: Onscreen advertising is one step above being a total scam and a completely ineffective means of spending your advertising dollars. The commercial spots are an insignificant 10 seconds, and are shown mostly in half-empty theatres, to kids with no buying power or people who regard onscreen ads as little more than an annoyance. They are totally ineffective. The company has something like an 8% renewal rate! That's abysmal.

"… The company management is made up of idiots who are out of step and totally clueless as to the realities of the world we live in. The regional VP was located in our office. I have known doorknobs with more brains than this idiot.

"DO NOT ever do business with Screenvision, and don't ever consider going to work for them! They're the Anti-Christ of the advertising world."

"Not what you'd want a prospective employee or customer to be reading," notes Davis. But as long as the blogger is reciting his or her experience, there's not much you can do about it, she says.

Industry Sites

For another example of another kind of social media site, check out Cafepharma.com, says Davis. Cafe has a message group for every significant pharmaceutical company and for geographic regions and tech specialties like IT.

"Depending on industry, geography, and how strong a presence you are in your industry, these groups will spring up as places where people congregate and talk about your company," Davis warns.

In a previous post, we talked about the three different job descriptions most jobs have. Today, we'll look at 10 specific factors you can evaluate as you work to unite those three job descriptions into one.

These 10 elements describe the specific job requirements in terms of "compensable factors." You can use these factors to gauge whether the job description properly captures the job, and you can use these factors to help gauge the level of compensation that is appropriate, as well as the exempt/nonexempt status of the position.

Hereare the primary compensable factors:

1. Experience. How long should the incumbent have worked in this job or in closely related jobs to be fully qualified? Is it important that the experience be within or outside the organization?

2. Education. What does the job require in terms of formal schooling, training, certification, or knowledge of a specialized field?

3. Responsibility. Is the employee responsible for the safety of other employees or for the loss or damage to tools, materials, or equipment? How significant to the employer is the work the position is responsible for? How big is the budget the incumbent manages?

4. Complexity of duties. Does the job require the incumbent to show judgment and initiative or to make independent decisions?

5. Supervision received. How closely does the incumbent's immediate supervisor or manager check his or her work? Does the supervisor or manager outline specific methods or work procedures?

6. Supervision exercised. How many people does the incumbent supervise, directly and indirectly? What responsibility does he or she have for controlling policy decisions, costs, or work methods?

7. Consequences of error. If the incumbent made an error, what dollar loss would be likely to result? How often does the possibility of loss or error occur?

8. Working conditions. Is there anything in the work environment that is unusually hazardous or uncomfortable? For what percentage of the time is the incumbent exposed to such conditions?

9. Mental, physical, and visual demands. What degree of concentration is required? Are there special physical demands? Is eyestrain likely?

10. Confidential data. To what extent is the incumbent responsible for confidential information? What would be the consequences of unwarranted disclosure? To what extent are integrity and discretion important?

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.

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.

CONTACT Is Key

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.

SMART Keeps You in Line

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. 

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.

What Is Social Media?

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.

Who Is Using It

Davis quotes a Pew Research Center survey that found the following percentages of usage over various age groups:

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. 

What Are the Challenges and Concerns?

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.

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.

1. Redefine the Vision for 2010

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.

2. Stop Micromanaging

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!

3. Celebrate Singles

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.

4. Lead from the Front

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."

5. Set Shorter-Term Goals

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).