Management Craft

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.....

When employees surf the net at work...

The T&D blog writes about the issue of non work related surfing and emailing. The post talks about the problem of the policy being unclear. Sure that's a problem.

But I wonder if we should not take a completely different approach. Let's face it - it's not whether this is going to happen, it's when. Come on, we all have done this.

And perhaps if we really admit it, employees surfing and emailing on their breaks is no big crime. Sure it takes up bandwidth, sure there's a cost associated. But what if we viewed this as part of the cost of retention. I think it is a good goal that we enable employees to take care of matters that need to be taken care of and the allow them to rest from work several times per day. Perhaps the mindless surfing to bid on a new Blackberry on ebay is going to help me him or her focus on real work later?

OK, we don't want employees spending hours per day surfing. Well, here's the thing. If you have employees surfing and emailing personal stuff for hours in a day, this is not caused by a lack of policy. So the managers who march themselves to HR to complain about their employees surfing too much and asking for a policy (I have had this happen) ought to turn back around, go to the mens or ladies room and look in the mirror. That's where the problem needs to be solved.

If people are not focused.
If people are not engaged in work.
If people aren't getting the work done.

Focus on solving these problems. You will gain so much more from this focus than you will by looking over people's shoulders and treating them like children.

• Break room with coffee and tea - $100 per month.
• Product discounts - $1,000 per year.
• Allowing me to take the time to check my email and get my new Blackberry for half price on ebay - Priceless.

Retention is worth its weight in platinum.

What's Your Sign?

Gautam Ghosh points to a story about a company that uses a person's horoscope as part of their criteria for selection. The comments are interesting.

What do you think?

In the U.S., this would be illegal unless you could convince a judge that knowing one's sign is a legitimate thing to ask and job related (not likely).

It's funny, but not surprising. Different groups, religions, countries, and individuals see meaning in different indicators. I guess one could argue (I'm not arguing this) that our horoscope is a little like a behavioral style.

Finding the right person for a job is a BIG deal and not at all straight forward. That's for sure. No matter how logical we try to be, we need a bit of magic in our process to get it right. Why? Because human beings are magical.

Interviewing Deeply and Well

Here’s a quiz question for you. Is a job interview a test or a conversation? Do you shine a bright light in the eyes of hopeful candidates or subject them to firing room squads of five-on-one group interviews? Do you hope that you will ask the question that trips candidates up so you can eliminate them? And interview ought to be a conversation – a two-way discussion that allows you to get to know the candidate and visa versa.

A job interview is not a test, it should be a conversation.

I am not a fan of group interviews because they do not make for a good conversation. Relationships are not being built and you are subjecting the candidate to stress that might inhibit his or her ability to open up and share experiences. I was once interviewed by a group of 12 people at once. The group included the CEO and several of his senior leadership team members. As a facilitator, I was able to handle the conversation. I was determined to get the job and one reason is that I wanted to get them to stop doing these group interviews! Did I really get to know any of them? No. Did they really get to know me? No, all they learned was that I could facilitate a conversation with 12 people.

Here are a few other recommendations for how to interview deeply and well and find the candidate who is the best fit for your open positions.

First and foremost, don’t let HR own the process of filling your position. Too many managers abdicate ownership of hiring and this is a big mistake. Who needs to train this person? Who needs to manage this person? Who will be responsible for ensuring this person is productive? On whose team will this person reside? You and yours. Personally, I would not even let HR narrow down the people to a list you ought to interview – their might be one of those unconventional rock stars in the pile of resumes and HR departments are more likely to screen based on job descriptions. Take the time to be very involved from the get go. Nothing against HR, I am an HR person myself. But HR does not know your needs and team like you do and they will not be managing the hire. It is in your best interest to get and stay involved. I know that some government agencies don’t let managers own the initial screening – if you work for the government, be as involved as your system allows and advocate for improving the system in an appropriate manner.

Behavioral interviewing: I like using behaviorally based questions because they get tell you how people approach their work and how they respond to various situations. I am not a fan of using behavioral questions in such a regimented way that it gets in the way of creating a conversation and relationship. Do you hand interviewers a list of seven questions and tell them to ask those and nothing else? I don’t recommend that approach – it’s mechanical and hiring a rock star needs to be a bit magical too (I can imagine all the employment attorneys wrinkling their noses at me while reading that). I think it is fine to ask each candidate some of the same questions, but then also take time for conversation that is specific to their experiences and interests. If you are not skilled in interviewing techniques, seek training or coaching, as this is necessary to make the right people decisions.

When talking to each candidate, get to know his or her motivation for applying for this job. What does he or she want to get from the position? What work does he or she most enjoy? If you are hiring a manager, determine whether the candidate has a genuine interest in and capacity for management – experience managing is not enough. You and I both know there are many lousy managers out there!
Ask several people to interview each candidate – one-on-one. Make sure the interviewers know your criteria for fit. Have a group debriefing meeting to get feedback. If someone has a bad or really good feeling about a candidate – take this seriously and look into it further. Our instincts are often right. 

Make sure you give candidates lots of time to ask questions. It is important that they have an opportunity to get to know you and learn what they need to know to determine their level of interest. In addition, I think you can tell a lot about how a candidate thinks by the questions they ask. If they have no questions, that’s a concern to me. If all their questions are about pay and benefits, that’s a red flag too. I want to hire someone who is interested in the business, so much so that they have done some research and come to the interview with several business related questions.

One last thought before I finish. The interview process is about establishing relationships. That relationship begins before the first interview occurs. I know that many of you may not have a lot of say about how applications are collected and screened, but I want you to consider the message your company sends if the only way they can apply for a job is online and there is no email address or phone number (that connects to a human) available in the event they have questions. If this is the way your HR department recruits, do whatever you can to get them to stop. This type of cold and inaccessible system will hurt your hiring efforts because the rock stars will have no patience for the system and many of the folks who take the time to fight with the system will not be the best applicants. My two cents worth.

Defining Job Fit Criteria

How do I write this politely and with some level of political correctness? Oh, forget about it, I’ll just type what I an thinking – most job descriptions suck. They suck for a few reasons. First, most job descriptions do not describe the most important aspects of the job. If you were write down a paragraph that details the most important and impactful work you do, and if you then compared this to the job description on file in the HR department for your job, would they be the same? Not likely, but they ought to be the same. Here’s another reason I hate most job descriptions, they do not help you find the rock star. Think about the most amazing employee at your company. Do you think that this person’s background and experiences match the job description for his or her job? Most don’t and in fact, some would not even get an interview if the job description were used as the only screening criteria. In other words, job descriptions often do a disservice to the selection process. And finally, job descriptions generally don’t address job fit, or the type of person you are seeking for the role. Bottom line? Doing a job description is not the same as defining criteria for job fit. Answer these questions to determine job fit characteristics:

• What type of person will best be able to have amazing success in this role given the tasks, the team dynamic, the work environment, and the areas of organization dysfunction?
• Think about people who have done this work in the past. What beliefs and behaviors were most successful and which were least successful and why?
• Over the next year, what changes or improvements do you hope to see the person in this role own or lead? What type of person will be most successful at making these changes successfully happen?
• Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of the other team members, what type of person would best help the team get to the next higher level of performance? What skills and experiences does the team need?
• What type of person will best challenge me and help push our department forward?
• Why is the candidate interested in the job and what are his or her career goals? Does this position make sense as the next position in their desired progression? If not, why are they interested and will they stay?

I do a lot of contract recruiting, particularly for management positions. The reasons my clients call me again and again is because they find it difficult to determine fit – or determine when someone is NOT a fit. This is their greater challenge – they often think the person is a great candidate because of their experience and background. The majority of the time, the person is not a fit. Think about this statement, because it’s the way it ought to be. Most people are not a fit for your open jobs. If you think about five businesses in your home city – most of them would not be a great fit for you – even within similar industries. For example, here in Seattle we have two large coffee companies – Starbucks and Tully’s. I have often thought I would like to work with Tully’s, but not Starbucks. Why? I like a scrappy entrepreneurial environment and Tully’s seems to fit that more than Starbucks. I think Starbucks has gotten so big so fast that it might be harder to have an impact (like steering the Titanic).

We all have different work environments that will be a great fit. When we interview candidates, we need have the environment and fit in mind so that we can better select the best person. If you do not take the time to define the criteria for job fit, you will have no way of knowing how well each candidate matches up to what you are looking for.

Get Rid of HR?

My last post started with a riff about rewards and ended with a sassy comment about getting rid of HR.

Well, I wrote that late last night and then did not sleep. I should know better.

I am an ex-HR wonk and current HR consultant, so do I really mean "get rid of HR?" Well, sort of, yes ( write with great trepidation).

Here's what I see that pains me:

Performance Management: How I hate this term, as it sounds so Skinnerian. And most methods are. Our parents might have tolerated being one of Pavlov's dogs, but our kids are thumbing their noses at any such notion. And they should. There's so much data and information out there that tells us our processes and systems for optimizing performance are backwards. Ditto for the learning systems we use in most schools. And yet we do this stuff anyway. The vast majority of companies are using systems they likely - in their hearts and minds - know do not work a lick. And the time and resources spent is huge.

Recruiting: The recruiting function in many companies is broken. Recruiters become paper shufflers who cannot spend the important time it takes to find the right talent for the positions. And we are using a checklist that often will scare away or weed out the very best talent. This process has become so transactional when it should be becoming more and more intimate and human.

Compliance/policy: Yes, we have laws and standards to think about. This part of HR often gives the function its reputation of being in the way - not helping - business. We live in a lawsuit oriented society. That said, instead of saying what we cannot do and why, smart HR execs help companies meet their goals while protecting their backsides.

Benefits: Talk about a no-win situation. The rising costs of health care make this an ever challenging role and service to provide. I empathize with all sides on this one - corporations who are paying through the nose for health care and employees who deserve coverage. We need to explore different models for how to best benefit our workers.

Organization Development: I love the art of great OD. That said, I never go to OD conferences because they infuriate me. Many OD practitioners are so obtuse and abstract and scare away leaders with behavioral science mumbo jumbo. Sure, we need to know some stuff about behavioral sciences, but then when we work with clients, it's all about how to get the job done. Many of the formal OD processes being used are not keeping up with the changes in what businesses need. Ironic, since this is the function that usually leads change implementation and management. One more thing about OD - OD became a separate function during a time when the industrial revolution demanded science based solutions to turning out more widgets. These days, I think that many OD functions ought to be wrapped into management and leadership development. Much of OD is really just great management.

And that brings me to training. When you look at the focus of many training departments and then you look at the needs of the organization, is there a match? I bet there are reports and PowerPoint presentations that say there is a match. Often, I disagree. The focus of our management and leadership training, in particular, needs to be looked at closely. What skills and beliefs do we want to cultivate?

This all sounds very negative, I am aware. I think that the functions within HR can serve an important role. I am not sure they all belong in HR, and I am not sure they all ought to be separate functions.

We have an opportunity to taker a fresh look at how our organizations should be built and our cultures developed. What if we took an Appreciative Inquiry approach to determining how best to serve our organizations? What would that look like?

Might be an interesting exercise. Perhaps I will think about facilitating a discussion like this and see what comes of it.