Management Craft

A call to action for managers and HR pros.

Times are tough. Even if you are doing OK, you know and notice that many workers are struggling to keep up. Companies are scaling back right when their workers need bigger raises to make up for huge price increases in gas, food, travel and housing.

So what are you doing to help? Well, if you are a manager or an HR professional, I recommend you get busy thinking of ways to make the lives of your valued employees better.

• Consider adjusting wages up if you can
• Offer alternative schedules to cut down on commuting expenses and improve work life balance
• Offer telecommuting if you can
• Adjust start times to allow people to come to work when there is less gas gobbling traffic
• Offer financial management classes to help people make better financial decisions
• Offer a bus pass program or other incentives for using public transportation
• Reduce business travel and use the money for pay and benefits - webinars are the way to go
• Ask your employees for their input on ways you can help

Now is NOT the time to be too rigid when it comes to schedules and workspaces. HR professionals and department managers have an opportunity - and obligation - to make a positive contribution during these times of economic uncertainty.

And if you are not in a decision making position, I suggest you print this post out and leave it in the mailboxes of several managers and the HR team on the morning before their next staff meeting. Be a catalyst!

Fireside Chat with Michael Volpe

Is there a "War of Talent?" Maybe not. Check out this podcast!

During this 20 minute podcast, I chat with Michael Volpe, HR Knowledge Manager and Editor of iWorkwell, about the supposed War of Talent. Michael makes the argument that there is no war for talent based on how we make hiring decisions. The podcast ends with some sage advice about how we approach attending to our business challenges.

You can listen to my podcast with the Michael Volpe by clicking here:

You can also download an MP3 version of the podcast here.

And just a reminder.....

Here is the Podcast Feed for the entire Fireside Chat podcast series:

To see the complete list of podcasts in this series, select the Podcasts and Webcasts category on this blog or see the list on my main website here.

You can also find this series on iTunes (and several other podcast sites), just search under my last name for Fireside Chat.

Pay more for being overweight or smoking?

Should we pay higher health care premiums at work if we are obese or smoke? This is a thought that upsets many, but the facts are clear - people who are overweight or who smoke cost more to care for.

What about another twist - should people who do not smoke or who maintain a healthy weight get "healthy living" discounts on health care premiums?

It's the same thing, really, but the second "spin" is likely more palatable.

I think it is only a matter of time until this happens at many workplaces and it already is the policy at some. I support this approach because I think we need to give people compelling reasons to encourage healthy lifestyles. And I think that people who cost more should pay more - that's fair. And depending on the amount of extra weight and number of packs they smoke, perhaps MUCH more, like double the cost for weight that is considered mobidbly obese.

What do you think?

Note: Before you send me nasty notes saying I am insensitive or do not understand the plight of overweight people, those of you who have met me know I have a few pounds to lose myself (but I am working on this). I do understand....

What can you offer employees?

Unless you are a highly respected and sought after large company with deep financial pockets, you need to compete for talent. 95% of companies are not in a position to demand more than they can give. As HR professionals and leaders, many of us like to run a tight ship and have consistent conservative policies.

That make people feel like one of Pavlov's dogs.

And if this is the situation, the only thing you can do to get them to temporarily work harder is to throw a bunch of money at them. Alas, that will not work forever and they will go work for someone else.

I like this article from Management Issues about flexibility called, Attraction of Flexible Working Ignored by HR. I think this is sad but true.

Here's the bottom line for most companies - You have limited funds and there are some irritations that you cannot reduce (like restrictive laws or the regulatory environment at hospitals, government, shipping, finance). Your stance ought to be to be flexible wherever you can be flexible.

This is particularly true for small companies. You don't have fancy training programs or a lot of upward mobility to offer. your salaries are likely lower than what people could get working for a bigger company. You won't have a long list of benefits and likely have just the the basic health care package. Small companies, in particular, ought to be as flexible as possible.

With today's competition for top talent we need to give people reasons to want to work for us - and many companies (influenced by many HR professionals) are just not getting it.

Things to consider:

• Telecommuting. We fear that we will not get everyone's full attention if we let them work from home. This assumption only holds water if we believe that we DO have their full attention at the office. Of course we don't. People zone out and they will - in the office and at their home office.
• Flexible hours. Do you have exempt (salary, don't earn overtime pay) employees? If so, you have the opportunity to embrace the nature of what it means to be exempt. when someone is exempt, I don't count hours worked, I pay for a particular result. I know a lot of companies who treat their exempt employees like they are on the clock with rigid expectations about when they should get to work and on which days they work. sure we all have to be present for a few pesky meetings, but otherwise you should not overmanage schedules. The same goes for hourly folks except that you do need to accurately count the hours - but try to be flexible with the schedule where possible.
• Benefits. I think we need to offer more choices. Companies spend a lot of money on benefits and I would rather do a bit more work and offer a menu of benefits from which and employee can pick versus offering only one or two options. Health care is a great example - there are lots of innovative products like high deductible plans with health savings accounts that might be a win/win for certain types of employees. Instead of paying $500 per month for each employee's health care, the high deductible plan might only cost $250 per month. For employees that choose this plan, put a deposit into their health saving account of $2,000 (money that will earn interest and can be used for any health related cost and is theirs to use for life).
• Work/Life Balance. Each company has different barrier to promoting a good balance between work and life. Sometimes it is the culture, sometimes the company is too cheap to hire the number of employees needed to get the work done. Often it is both. The saying, "I run a lean company," or "We believe in running lean," are euphemisms for, "we are too cheap to hire the right number of people," and "you will be doing the work of two people." Periodic work peaks is fine, but people deserve balance and they do better work when they have a life.
• Position changes. Small organizations may not have a lot of promotion opportunities. If you have a rock star employee, be creative in letting him or her stretch his or her wings. I would rather roll the dice on a rock star than hire the mediocre person with the precise background that you seek. And if you need to modify a job to fit the person, so be it.
• Time off. Allow people to be creative with how they bundle their time off. Encourage people take their vacations (not by refusing to roll it over, that's a parental response, not an adult-adult response).

How flexible is your company?

Dress Code - Part 2

I like this amusing article from Wayne Turmel (of Cranky MM Fame) post on Management Issues called, Wearing my Big Boy Clothes. Here's a snippet:

This change of heart is somewhat disturbing for a couple of reasons. First, I've always thought of myself as something of a rebel, and the coat and tie are perceived as a universal symbol of corporate enthrallment- who needs a reminder that I'm working for someone else?

Secondly, I've always maintained I'm the same person whether I'm dressed up or not. It turns out neither are necessarily true.

I did a post that said basically the opposite - sort of - a few days ago. The posts come from different perspectives - Wayne's is from the viewpoint of a person wanting to be perceived well. My post discussed the HR implications of dress codes. Wayne's is speaking for himself here - as a consultant and leader in a services firm. I agree that when I wear my charcoal gray suit I get a different reaction then when I wear biz casual.

It's also a very east coast and European perspective.

For all you managers out there, I would still encourage a dressing down of the workplace. Let people be comfortable. Create a culture where thoughts, not labels, impress.

I may be sounding like an idealist here (ala world peace and we are all one people) but I think that things will never change unless we change them.

Instead of casual Friday, let's dress casual all the time and have the option to dress up on Friday. Ties then Mai Tais. What do you think?

This post has not been brought to you by the Men's Warehouse. :-)

Dress Code Woes

I like this post from the HR Capitalist called, Why Enforcing Dress Codes Will Drive All Men Out of HR. Here is a snippet:

Could the manager have had the conversation without getting you involved?  Sure.  Without saying something to get you sued?   Hmmm.   So you walk down to Cube 317 to take care of business.  You pull out speech 17b on what's appropriate or not and BAAAM!!!!  Alice tells you she has a medical condition where the spandex in the pants helps her circulation, and the slippers are the only thing her feet will fit into because of the swelling.  You look up and - I'm not joking but you guessed it - there are 20 Call Center Reps, all dressed the right way, watching what you are going to say next.

Well, female HR pros don't like spending there time on such issues either. I understand it might be more uncomfortable for men to say (in their special HR way), "hey, honey, zip up the shirt, you're making the men and some women salivate into their keyboards.

How much ought we care about dress code and why do people act dumb when they know the dress code?

1. How much ought we care? As little as possible. For workplaces that don't interact with clients - No private parts hanging out, no undergarments showing, basically (this is different in a factory where safety issues might also be a factor). If clients come into the office, then perhaps dress needs to rise to the level of "business casual." But then you get into skirt length and the materials that pants are made of. Denim, spandex, no holes or patches. Is cleavage OK if the blouse is silk but not if it's a cotton tank?

2. Why do people act dumb and wear sleazy or slimy or sloppy clothing? Adults will not make the best judgments when they don't feel connected to the workplace. If you have a workplace that is more like a impersonal factory - with extrinsic rewards being the only impetus for answering the phones with a nice tone of voice, you are going to create a workplace where people act like children. If you have to spend a lot of time enforcing dress code issues, I would say you have bigger problems than the dress code. The spandex is just the canary in the coal mine that indicates a control oriented workplace that does not foster connection, engagement, and ownership.

The more work feels like high school, the more likely you will be asked to become a hall monitor.

One more thing - you want to solve the problem of girls dressing in miniskirts and skimpy tops? Turn down the thermostat. Freeze them into some decent clothing. I'm kidding, of course.

The Starbucks Lawsuit

You've probably heard about the class action suit against Starbucks. The complainants are alleging that their jobs do not qualify for exemption (being paid a salary with no overtime) because they spend a majority of their time doing the non-exempt work of a barista.

When I hear about these big cases, I try to put myself in the position of the HR leaders of the company who were responsible for driving these decisions. Because I have been on the inside for cases like this and have had my share of conversations with wage and hour lawyers, I am left with just one response.

What were the HR leaders at Starbucks thinking?

Caveat: I just want to make it clear that I am responding based on what I am hearing in the news - I have no special/inside knowledge of the situation at Starbucks. I could be wrong and misinformed.

 

I respect Starbucks a lot and I spend thousands a year on their products. But this seems to be to be a no-brainer. We've all gone into Starbucks stores and we can see that the managers are "working managers."

The laws may vary a bit from state to state and all states must minimally comply with FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). With all the unique jobs out there, it's is not always cut and dry to figure out which roles ought to be exempt. That said, regardless of the exemption type, all jobs need to pass the test that the exempt work takes a majority of their time. In the case of a Starbucks store manager- particularly small locations with just a few employees - one would predict that their managers spend much of the time in the front of the house.

There are a couple issues here. First, is how they interpret the regulations and how they design the jobs. Second, they need to make decisions that are right  - in compliance and in both the employees' and company's interests. Third, they must acknowledge that as a large and well known company, they have a big red target on their backs (all companies ought to comply, but Starbucks must cross all their Ts and dot all their Is).

But they are voted a "great place to work," every year! I think Starbucks does many, many things right and they offer a lot of benefits to part-time workers. That said, all it takes is one employee to get the ball rolling on a big class action lawsuit.

I would guess that there will be many more to come in other states, too. And this could affect other businesses, too.

The facts will unfold, and who knows, maybe I don't know the pertinent facts and maybe I am wrong. Maybe the managers do spend most of their time doing exempt level work (or ought to be). But if I were in the HR department at Starbucks - based on what I see from the outside -  I would not have allowed the store managers to be classified as exempt. Sometimes the HR leaders get vetoed, too, but that's when we need to show our leadership to ensure the right things are done. It's moments like these that we show why we exist.

When I do HR work, I am OK being the "evil HR lady" as long as I know that the work I am doing leads to the right decisions and that it helps protect the company and its employees. I was in this situation once, where we needed to make a lot of unpopular (to the executives and the company purse) changes to do the right things. It was a very difficult time and I was hated by a large number of people because of the disruption. But it was the right thing to do and that was proven soon thereafter.

HR leaders are faced with gnarly and complex situations every day and most of them pour their hearts into their work - work that is largely ignored by others. Think about it, HR leaders get about as much respect as Lawyers and IRS auditors.

But I cringe and feel pain when these things happen to great companies because of what seems like weak or inaccurate HR leadership. Sorry, but  if this case reveals that the managers ought not be exempt (my prediction), I blame the HR leadership at Starbucks. As hard - as agonizing - as it would have been to lead this change, you should have done it. That's why you are there.

If the facts come out that I am wrong, I will be the first to apologize to the HR leaders a Starbucks on this blog. In fact, I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not.

Employees with Bad Attitudes

Bad Attitude.... it's a bad term and now that I have written it, I would encourage you not to use it. Why? Because as a manager, saying someone has a bad attitude is of no help:

• It does not tell you what the person is doing that is unacceptable
• It does not allow you to take any kind of action

I have coached a lot of managers through what they called attitude problems. There are no attitude problems, but there are:

• Employees who do not build and maintain positive team relationships
• Employees who communicate in ways that are disruptive or disrespectful
• Employees who cause fellow team members stress and unease with their comments and/or actions
• Employees who have a negative impact on the workplace because of excessive complaints and derogatory remarks
• Employees who do not adequately collaborate and cooperate with team members

Many managers throw their hands in the air and believe that they cannot do anything about these employees. Not so. The above behaviors are not acceptable and can and should be managed just like any other expectation.

I think saying that an employee has a bad attitude is often a cop out because dealing with performance issues around one's demeanor and communication style is hard. As long as you call it a bad attitude, you can rationalize doing nothing but complaining about it. Yep, it's not easy to talk to an employee about these topics but it is harder to leave your team to deal with it every day.

Few employees with so-called bad attitudes get good clear feedback and fewer still are held accountable for being productive members of the team. Do you agree?

Soap Box Quote #3

The hiring process ought to always feel personal, even when that’s a pain in the neck.

Four day work week - yippee!

I had lunch with a former employee who recently changed jobs. She loves her new company for a lot of reasons. We lunched on a Friday and she had the day off. She has every other Friday off and I could tell by her smile and energy that she loved it. What a great idea! She works 9 hour days Monday - Thursday to make up for having every other Friday off. But most people work 9 hours anyway, right?

I think this is a splendid idea and thought I would pass it along. I think you should do these kinds of things to help people recharge whenever possible.

What can you do at your workplace to help your employees enjoy their time off more, thereby making them happier at work?

When I worked at Intel, I had a 4 day week and worked 10 hour days as the OD consultant. I had a colleague that worked the same schedule and we overlapped on one day per week. I worked Sunday - Wednesday and she worked Wed-Saturday. Worked well and I always had 3 day weekends (well sometimes I had to come in for a meeting, but not too often). Having 3 day weekends in New Mexico was wonderful because there's so much to explore.

You know what? I think I am going to institute a 4 day work week after I get back from my 6-week bike trip. I work for myself so I should be able to do this, right? You betcha. It will be tough, I tell ya, because I have an extra gene called the RUA-workaholic gene. I bet many of you have this gene too.

Hmmm... Very intriguing.....I'm going to think on that one and figure out how to do that.....