Productivity: the Art of Accomplishment

One can easily view the workplace as a sweatshop where poor employees toil on endlessly under unbearably harsh conditions. While there may be an element of truth to that perspective in some parts of the world, it is hardly an accurate characterization of work in the USA. When I ask my graduate students, as I do every year, to describe a workplace that is desirable to them, inevitably work is viewed as a place to accomplish something. They find that it is not enough to simply get paid for the time you spend at work. Satisfaction is directly related to a sense of achievement.

Many of the graduate students are working on advanced degrees because they view public service as a personal value. In other words, work becomes a better place to be when I leave each day feeling that my efforts have resulted in measurable, positive outcomes. On the other hand, it is discouraging to leave work with the gnawing sense that my time has been wasted. This is one of the reasons why so many of us dislike group meetings: these meetings are often poorly run and highly wasteful of participants time.

Now, before I go on, I must set forth a disclaimer. There are obviously those employees who are not particularity concerned about accomplishment. If an individual is exhausted because he or she is working two low paying jobs in order to survive financially, personal satisfaction from high accomplishment is probably not on the top of the list. On the other hand, if a person is beset with personal problems, getting by and getting a paycheck may be more than sufficient to that person. While there are constructive strategies for managing employees who are not accomplishment-oriented, that is a topic for a different e-zine and not a concern of this one.

Ultimately, however, I believe that the vast majority of employees like to work in a situation where they believe their time is well spent and for a boss who is good at helping employees get the job done. The remainder of this e-zine focuses on concepts and actions related to creating a productive workplace.

About fifteen years ago there was a wildcat strike at a GM plant in Flint, Michigan. A wildcat strike occurs during the term of a labor contract and is both unusual and illegal. It most often occurs when employees are very angry about something. Ironically, one of the issues at the factory involved a new provision in the labor contract that permitted a piecework approach to certain jobs. Instead, however, of being paid by the piece, employees assigned to a job that was designated piecework were permitted to leave work when they completed the designated number of pieces for that position.

The example set forth in the article that I read involved employees who operated a muffler assembly station. Under the old labor agreement, each employee in this position was producing on average 38 mufflers for each eight hour shift. Under the new piecework system, when an employee finished 40 mufflers they would be allowed to leave work and receive pay for the whole eight hour shift.

Under this approach both the employer and employee benefited. In almost every case, the employer got two more mufflers for each eight hours of pay and a diligent employee could work fewer hours while receiving pay for a full shift. Here is the rub: under the new piecework system employees were completing 40 mufflers in just over four hours. This created tremendous internal dissension because employees who were not in a piecework job did not have the opportunity to receive full pay for less than eight hours of work. Ultimately, the employer went back to the old system to get rid of the internal strife.

There are two points from this example that I want to emphasize. First, in most cases employees are capable of producing far more than what they are currently producing. Further, I believe that employees are happier when producing at a higher level - they have a greater sense of accomplishment. In other words, better performance does not have to occur at the expense of job satisfaction, but rather can be an enhancer. Most importantly, it is the task of management to find constructive ways to bring out the best performance in each employee.

Second, it is not true that if an employee can produce 40 mufflers in four hours, he or she can produce 80 mufflers in eight hours. There is no reason to believe that the pace of work undertaken by the employees during the four hours could be maintained over eight hours. In the book The Power of Full Engagement, the authors focus on the importance of managing employee energy. They point out the significant difference between managing a steady flow of energy and managing short outbursts of high energy. They take the position that short outburst of high energy will generally achieve an increase in outcome. In other words, there can be a regular rate of work, which is not taxing, punctuated by periods of intense effort to achieve a clearly defined outcome.

The critical question involves the methods by which employees can be encouraged to provide the periods of intense effort. Going home early is obviously one reward, and there are many others that can be used. In the construction industry I have observed contractors very skillfully using a "celebration of accomplishment" as a reward at certain milestones in a project. In these cases, the employees were very well aware of the milestone and the push that was necessary to accomplish the work within the scheduled period of time.

I leave you with this thought as we move on to the next point: you really need to be thinking about how to manage for bursts of energy, as opposed to simply maintaining a steady state. A burst can be exhilarating to employees and, if properly managed, will provide a higher level of performance and greater job satisfaction.

Turning to another point, you will find under the recommended reading section of this e-zine my endorsement of the book Execution: the Discipline of Getting Things Done. One of the basic premises of the book is that organizations often spend a substantial amount of time creating business plans and determining action steps only to find that very little happens - there is a failure to execute. Execution is the carry-through of the action steps. The book states:

Execution is a specific set of behaviors and techniques that companies need to master in order to have competitive advantage. It is a discipline of its own. In big companies and small ones, it is the critical discipline for success now. (Page 7)

I see execution as the difference between working hard and getting the job done. I often feel that I work very hard and get nothing done. I would guess that many of you feel exactly the same way. Part of the discipline of execution is having an awareness that we need to be getting things done. Be clear as to what those things are and do not confuse hard work with execution.

One of the ways that I evaluate the effectiveness of my own work efforts is to determine what percentage of time spent was value added. Value added work is work which directly supports a desired outcome. I have found that being conscious of the fact that a significant portion of my effort needs to be value added helps me keep on task and assures that things will get done.

One other point about execution. I once heard a wonderful presentation titled Elephants Don't Bite, Fleas Do. The point of the presentation is that big mistakes aren't the problem with execution. Sure, they can happen and they can create a mess. But, in most cases the real problem is all of the small mistakes that constantly disrupt the flow of work. Thus, one of the critical components of execution is timely attention to the details; get it right the first time. The constant redoing of a task is not value added and it obviously detracts from getting things done.

Finally, I'd like to point to the work by Robert Mager in the classic piece titled Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna. This book would have been my second choice for recommended reading based on the topic of this e-zine. It is an old classic published many years ago and recently completely revised into a third edition. It is full of good ideas on how to analyze and correct employee performance issues.

I want to conclude this portion of the e-zine by focusing on just one of the concepts from the book. Mager gives an example of a dental school that felt its students were performing poorly in fitting dentures to patients. In studying the problem, Mager noticed that the fitting room was on one floor and the lab where work was done on the dentures was down a long hallway and up a flight of stairs to the next floor. Significant improvement occurred in student performance when the lab was moved next to the fitting room.

Conclusion: make it easy for your employees to do the right thing. In my view this is the logical first step in looking for ways to improve the performance of employees. Are there ways to remove barriers from effective performance? Are there ways to make it easier for employees to do what we need them to be doing?

Reader Question

I manage a residential care facility that provides services to the developmentally disabled. Recently I was asked by the parents of a young man (early 20s) if I could move a male employee to another location. The parents thought that their son had developed an inappropriate crush on the employee. They are not accusing the employee of inappropriate behavior, but were worried about the feelings and actions of their son. The problem is compounded by the fact that the employee has openly acknowledged that he is gay. Do you have any thoughts?

There are days when I very much believe that it is much easier to be a college professor, seminarist and labor arbitrator then to manage anything, let alone a residential care facility. Your question potentially involves issues related to involuntary transfer, discrimination based on sexual orientation, good customer service and other less troubling matters. You ask if I have any thoughts, and I do.

First, since I believe in the concept of open management, the initial step should be to involve the employee. I have two reservations, however, about the involvement process. To begin, it is difficult to have open interaction on a touchy subject with an employee if the relationship does not have a history of friendly discourse. If the relationship with the employee is touchy or strained, then I think the communication will have to be more formal and guarded. Hopefully this is not the case and you will have an opportunity to determine whether the employee will positively accept a transfer. After all, the employee may be feeling a certain amount of personal stress over the situation and would welcome a new environment. Even if that is not true, the employee will be involved in a problem solving process.

My other reservation concerns the nature of the interaction itself. Management needs to retain control over the problem and not cede authority to the employee. Yes, you want the employee to be a part of finding a good solution, but the ultimate authority needs to remain with management.

Second, it has become almost trite to refer someone to an attorney. This is one of those situations, however, where you may need to consult an attorney before acting, as the laws in each state with regard to nondiscrimination and sexual orientation differ substantially. This is an area where the law has been changing and you will need the latest information.

Third, having acknowledged the above reality, there are two points that need to be considered. One has to do with the concept of equal treatment. What if the nature of the problem did not involve an employee that was openly gay? What if the individual in question had a crush on a female employee and the parents were concerned about this relationship? The general rule of thumb requires equal treatment of employees unless there is a clear business reason why they should be treated differently. In either case the Employer may see a good reason to transfer the employee or not to transfer. My guess is that the reasoning would be essentially the same for both situations.

The other point deserving of consideration involves the protocols you have in place for responding to a parental complaint or concern. Do you have a process by which to ensure that the parents are fully listened to? On the other hand, my experience is that an organization needs to be careful as to how it responds to complaints. At times, simply listening with a little reassurance will be sufficient to resolve the problem. Or, have the parents actually met the employee? That meeting may be sufficient to set aside any concerns. Ultimately, and this I believe is the important point, the agency must act in the best interest of the organization, even if the action is not to the parents' liking. At minimum, however, the action of the agency needs to be provided to the parents along with an appropriate explanation.

Note: Do you have a perplexing HR question? Send us the question by clicking on thehawthornegroup@msn.com and let us take a shot at answering it. We will select one question each month and research it. Please indicate whether we have permission to publish your name and organization when identifying the question.

Books of the Month

Professional Growth: This e-zine is all about getting things done. What better book then one that focuses on why some organizations accomplish a great deal while others accomplish very little.

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done - Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan.

Personal Growth: How often do we do things without knowing that we are doing them even though whatever we are doing has a profound impact on our lives? While the central theme of this book is about our eating habits, the message is far deeper.

Mindless Eating - Brian Wansink

Quote of the Month

The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago; the second best time is right now.

Confucius

Continue reading...

Building a Positive Workplace Culture

I want to introduce you to a new web site that I have created (www.makingworkabetterplacetobe.com) that is dedicated to promoting concepts related to building a positive workplace. Positive, of course, in the context of how employees feel about the place. A great workplace has four foundational elements: 1) a great culture, 2) high levels of productivity, 3) quality relationships, 4) opportunity for growth. I'm dedicating the next four posts to further exploring each of the foundational elements. We start, therefore, with looking at what it takes to build a great organizational culture.

When I think of organizational culture, my mind immediately goes to two constructs. The first involves what can be called the informal rules of behavior -- the way we do things around here. Another way to express this point is the concept of a boundary between what is acceptable activity and what is not acceptable. By the word activity I am referencing actions related to work and relationship - how we do our work and how we relate to each other.

The second construct I like to call the organizational affect - the feeling of the place. There are times when you walk into an organization and you have an immediate impression of good spirits and good will. At other times, the sense of the place may be tense and irritable.

When activity is combined with affect, the desirable end state is a positive, productive culture. Or, from an opposite point of view, the organization seeks to avoid a negative, unproductive culture.

It seems to me that much of what I have just written is somewhat obvious and, perhaps, common sense. The challenge, of course, is to focus on what will bring about a positive productive culture. How does an organization set boundaries on work and relationship behavior that brings about a positive, productive culture? I have a few thoughts for you.

First, Marty Seligman wrote a wonderful book titled Authentic Happiness. In that book he argues that true happiness emanates from behavior that is consistent with our core values. In my view, organizations have values. These values are frequently written out. The values that are written out are not necessarily the actual values of the organization. The organizational culture reflects the actual or working values. The employees within the organization also have their individual core values.

It is the connection between outcomes and values that I most want to draw your attention to. I do not believe it is possible to have a positive workplace culture if the stated values of the organization, the actual values of the organization and the individual values of the employees are out of alignment. This is true whether we are talking about the relationship between our values and how we treat our fellow employees or whether we are talking about values and how we are asked to perform our work. In his new book Measure of a Leader, Behavioral Psychologist Aubrey Daniels and his co-author write, "Competence comes when successful outcomes are produced by values-driven purposeful behaviors" [emphasis added]. The feeling of competence is obviously a dimension of a positive workplace affect, and that feeling, in my view, is buttressed when the outcomes are a reflection of our values.

I recently had a client who told me that she had devised a half-day training program around a series of hypothetical incidents. Participants were asked to identify possible courses of action in response to each incident. The second part of this activity was a discussion related to each and how the action reflected the expressed values of the organization. It was, she stated, a most thought provoking activity and one that drew an enthusiastic response from the participants. Most important, I believe that such an exercise will help build a positive culture in that it encourages participants to connect action with values.

Simply put, you cannot have a positive, productive culture if employees are pressured into acting contrary to their personal values. Moreover, when an organization expresses a positive set of values, but asks employees to act inconsistently with those values, it undermines any effort to establish a positive culture. A great culture cannot be built on unethical behavior.

Second, organizational culture is little influenced by memos, lectures and other formal edicts. Rather, culture is created primarily by everyday informal interaction and the example set by leadership. Extolling the virtues of a strong work ethic, for example, in a written memo will typically have little impact on the culture. Modeling a strong work ethic by being the first to arrive, the last to leave and by industrious activity will have a much greater impact. You cannot expect your subordinates to act civilly when you act like a jerk. You cannot expect your employees to act with integrity if you fail to act with integrity. You must walk the talk or, more importantly, simply let the walking speak for itself.

Gandhi's often used statement that "you must be the change that you want to see in the world" has become, perhaps, almost trite. What I believe is often missing, however, is the simple truth that modeling behavior by leadership impacts the organizational culture only if there is a strong bond of trust between subordinate and superior. If the superior is disliked and not trusted, employees are not very likely to follow the example that has been set. When employees believe in your leadership they will follow the behavior that is modeled. Question, what do you do that makes you believable and that permits your subordinates to respect you?

Third, I am a strong believer in the importance of affection in the workplace. Do we like each other? Do we enjoy working with each other? The difficulty so often is finding a way to make affection for your fellow employees part of the organizational culture. Recently I ran across the top level executive for a premier country club. In our discussions he shared with me that it was his practice constantly emphasize with his 140 employees that "the most important thing we do here is take care of each other. Our patrons are the benefactors."

What is intriguing to me is that many organizations have a strong emphasis on providing quality customer service. Obviously this is important for the survival of those organizations. However, I wonder if my executive friend is not correct. Is it not difficult to give good customer service if we don't like and take care of our fellow employees? Moreover, if we take good care of each other, are we not creating a positive environment (culture) that can be easily seen and appreciated by our customers?

Desmond Tutu is quoted as saying that "love is more demanding than the law." I view the word "law" as including everything from federal/state statutes to an employee handbook - the formal rules. To the extent that leadership can work with employees to create a culture that truly values taking care of each other, I believe that you will have surpassed the requirements of law and built a workplace that employees will truly appreciate.

Clearly, there is much more that can be presented with regard to the above three points. My intention is to continue to do so, but primarily through material placed on the making work a better place to be website. For now, I want to simply emphasize the point that with some focused effort it is clearly possible to build a strong, productive, positive workplace culture.

Next Month: Obviously, this month focused on the first of the four foundational elements to building a great workplace, next month I will look at the second - the productive workplace. The workplace does not feel, to most employees, like a great place to be when they see that their work efforts are either wasted or short-changed. We all want to feel that our life counts for something.

Reader Question

I was recently conducting a job interview along with my boss who is the owner of our small company. To my surprise, the owner asked the candidate whether or not he was a smoker.
I did not think it was appropriate to ask this question and wondered if it violated some statue. Can you clarify this for me?

I can understand the owner's interest in this question. Over the years I have run across a number of different statistics on the negative impact of the smokers in our work force. This includes higher medical premiums, more sick days, lower productivity, etc.

But, you are right to be concerned at least in a number of different states. Our research indicates that 29 of the 50 states have specific provisions protecting the right of employment for smokers. The state of Oregon statute, for example, puts the matter as follows:

ORS Chapter 14, Title 51, 659A.315 Restricting use of tobacco in nonworking hours prohibited; exceptions.

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using lawful tobacco products during nonworking hours, except when the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement.

I have two general thoughts about your question and the state of employment law. First, as a general rule, it is not advisable to predicate employment practices on off duty conduct that is legal. If the off-duty conduct has a negative impact on the workplace, then focus on controlling the negative impact. For example, the employer can focus on the attendance problem, not the smoking behavior.

Second, even in those states that do not have a specific provision against discrimination for lawful outside of work behavior, I would be careful about using it as the basis of an employment action. I would definitely want to check with a knowledgeable attorney as to the specific state of the law and as to whether there were court decisions in your state that give guidance on the matter.

Note: Do you have a perplexing HR question? Send us the question by clicking on thehawthornegroup@msn.com and let us take a shot at answering it. We will select one question each month and research it. Please indicate whether we have permission to publish your name and organization when identifying the question.

Books of the Month

Professional Growth I was recently talking to an association executive about a speaking engagement. He made a telling comment, "my constituents are tired of hearing the same old stuff about leadership." If you are tired of the "same old stuff," then I strongly recommend you read:

Measure of a Leader - Aubrey Daniels and James Daniels.

Personal Growth I have always been fascinated by authors who can make profound statements with very simple words. Don Miguel Ruiz has that ability and one of his newest books addresses a key issue, one that is mentioned above.

The Mastery of Love - Don Miguel Ruiz

Quote of the Month

The real act that leadership should fear is indifference - indifference to the vision and values that make the organization unique.

Daniels and Daniels, Measure of a Leader

Continue reading...

Making Work a Better Place to Be, Revisited

In April of 2006, I wrote an e-zine titled Making Work a Better Place To Be. That e-zine marked a transition into both a new format and a specific focus. My goal was to develop each topic with the underlying purpose of making the information helpful in creating a more dynamic, constructive workplace. I have decided that, for a couple of reasons, it is time to revisit that topic.

The workplace, of course, is defined by the people in your employee. Obviously, therefore, the concept of making work a better place is specifically focused on how employees experience the workplace. From a leadership or HR perspective, it is very easy to focus on specific factors such as compensation, benefits, employee orientation, performance management and other such concerns. What about the bigger picture, however?

My father was a minister and, like most preachers, loved a good story. One of his favorites, that I heard many times, involved the building of a great cathedral – think Notre Dame of Paris.

In the story, a “reporter” decided to write an article on the building of the cathedral. In order to do so he determined to interview some of the workers on the project. Talking to masons, glazers, carpenters and other craftspeople, he asked them to explain what they were doing. Each, in greater or lesser detail, described the duties of their craft. This went on until he interviewed a common laborer whose job it was to dig trenches in which to lay drainage tile. Without hesitation, when he was asked the question, the man responded, “Why sir, I am building a great cathedral.”

For all of us, it is easy to get caught up in the daily grind of activities, losing sight of the bigger picture. Are we simply performing the functions of our craft with little awareness of a larger goal? Or, are we consciously aware that our efforts are contributing towards building a great workplace? I am one who believes that being able to see a bigger picture, at least some of the time, will have a significant impact on organizational effectiveness.

Several years ago I listen to a presentation by a highly respected consultant. He provided some insights which I found very useful. One point he made is that there is an endless buffet of tips for leaders. A difficulty is that we often do not distinguish between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the overall plan for creating the desired end (in our case, building a great workplace).

Tactics are individual steps needed to implement the strategy. Tactics are useful, therefore, only to the extent that they support the chosen strategy. Thus, tactics should support a strategy designed to achieve an end goal. I am often dismayed when I see tactics chosen that actually sabotage the strategy. Anger, frustration and ego appear to be some of the motivators for these tactics.

So, are we just doing our craft? Or, are we building a great workplace? Check out my new web site: www.makingworkabetterplacetobe.com. I have committed to maintaining this site as a noncommercial venue to provide articles and ideas related to the creation of a great workplace. The site is new and will be constantly upgraded as we develop material. Most importantly, I am encouraging you to contribute to the website. I welcome your suggestions, articles and other submissions. Obviously, I will retain editorial control but want to make the information as broadly based as possible.

One of the first things you’ll notice when you go to the site is that I have subdivided the larger topic of a great workplace into four primary concerns. In my view, a desirable workplace is dependent on building a great culture, high levels of productivity, quality relationships and the opportunity to grow. There is nothing original in this group of four; I call them the fundamentals. Like any variable that can be called a fundamental, the important issue is not originality but rather effective implementation. In other words, the best workplaces are good at the fundamentals. This is not to say that creativity in implementation cannot be helpful. Rather, the point is that there are basics that must serve as the foundation for a great workplace. I am providing a quick introduction to each of the four foundational principles with the promise to expand on each in future editions of this e-zine.

1. Much is known about the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance. In my work I have run across two different definitions of organizational culture: 1) “the way we do things around here,” 2) the point at which the work group says “no.” One fact for sure in any organization, effective and long lasting change occurs only when the culture buys into the new program. Most importantly, culture is little influenced by edict and policy. Rather, the culture must be built and/or influenced overtime. I will have much more to say on this last point in the next e-zine.

2. Feeling good about your work is difficult if you believe that most of your effort during the workday is wasted. I absolutely believe that employees want to experience the sense of accomplishment that comes from producing desired outcomes. Work that is value added feels good. Work that appears to produce no useful end result is frustrating and demoralizing. While I will write much more on this topic at a later time and encourage your submissions on this point, for the present I want to emphasize that a great workplace has more to it than a warm supportive environment; employees must feel that their time is well spent.

3. Love is a topic which once again we can discuss in the context of the workplace. Not in the sense, of course, of a romantic relationship or something illicit but in the context of how employees treat each other. Are you surprised? Tim Sander’s marvelous best seller, Love is the Killer App helped to encourage the reconsideration of the importance of positive affection between employees and the appropriate behaviors that should accompany that affection. In my view, you cannot have a great workplace if your employees do not genuinely care for each other.

4. General systems theory takes the position that an organization is either growing or dying. The same can be said for employees; they are either growing or stagnating. Much has been written about the learning organization and how to implement those strategies that will move the organization and its people in that direction. Without question, a great workplace energizes its employees by promoting growth and opportunity.

I am looking forward to using both the web site and this e-zine to continuing to develop these four concepts and others related to making work a better place to be.

Next Month: obviously, since I have just finished reviewing what I consider to be the four foundational elements of a constructive workplace and have indicated my intention to expand on each in a separate e-zine, the next e-zine will focus on the first of the four: building a positive culture.

Our company recently bargained its first contract with a union, and I’ve just been given the task of representing our position in a grievance over a discharge. It is my understanding that I, as the employer representative, have to meet the burden of proof. Isn’t this backwards? I thought that the party bringing the grievance had the responsibility of proving its case.

There is an old saying in labor relations, “management acts, the union reacts.” Under this concept, the union has the right to challenge a management action when it believes that the action has violated the labor agreement. Thus, in challenging the action, the union carries the burden of proving the violation. If the matter goes to arbitration, then the union goes first with its presentation.

This approach, however, is not applied in a matter of employee discharge. Rather, a regular status employee is viewed as having a right to his or her job and, if the employer wishes to take it away, then a good case needs to be presented towards that end. As a result, if you are in an arbitration proceeding where the discharge is being contested, the employer will be asked to go first with its presentation and it will need to present “just cause” (a well documented case with solid business related reasons) for the termination.

Even if your employees are not represented by a labor organization, you may still be required to present an affirmative case for a discharge. This could happen, for example, related to an EEOC complaint or regarding an unemployment compensation filing. What is important to recognize is that each venue (labor arbitration, EEOC, unemployment) has a different set of decision-making criteria. Thus a solid case for discharge presented to the labor arbitrator may not be a basis for challenging the employee’s petition for unemployment compensation. Likewise, an employer can prevail in a discrimination complaint before EEOC even when it is not successful before the labor arbitrator. Obviously this leads to the conclusion that if the employer wishes to self-represent in all three arenas, then it needs to develop the knowledge necessary to make an effective presentation, a presentation appropriate to the venue. Otherwise, competent professional assistance needs to be obtained.

Quote of the Month:

To be creditable, we must be truthful.

Edward R. Murrow

Continue reading...

Attendance Control Programs: Summarizing My Thoughts

Last week a local newspaper ran a front page story about sick leave abuses in the Sheriff’s Department. Overall, sick leave usage was substantially increased over just a few years ago. It seems that the new Sheriff has not been nearly as diligent as the old Sheriff in policing sick leave usage among deputies in the corrections department. When interviewed the Sheriff indicated that he believed his hands were tied by the labor contract and the fact that the deputies were only using sick leave that had been legitimately accrued.

Maybe, but let’s think about that.

As noted in the last e-zine, the main topic for this month is the effectiveness of attendance control programs. As the above article helps illustrate, this is a timely topic and one I frequently receive questions about. Over the years I have reviewed a number of surveys conducted with HR managers on important issues. Tardiness and absenteeism has been, on every single survey, the number one concern. In a prior e-zine I wrote about no fault attendance programs that are based on a rolling twelve month period of time. I am not intending to duplicate that article but rather my intention is to share information, insights and observations related to the attendance issue that have been accumulating over the past 35 years of working with HR problems.

In public sector employment, my experience is that the most common accrual rate is roughly one day of sick leave for each month of work. At one time it was not uncommon to find many of the older employees that had several hundred days of accumulated sick leave. Sick leave was typically viewed as an insurance policy against potential illness. Thus, if you were not ill then sick leave days simply continue to accumulate. If there was a limit on total accrual, potential days of sick leave were simply sacrificed when the limit had been reached. This was viewed no differently than having fire or flood insurance on your house. While one paid for the insurance, the hope is that collection never occurs and the money paid for the insurance simply lost.

Current research indicates that the attitude about sick leave has substantially changed from insurance used to offset an undesired outcome to one of entitlement. Thus many employers, like the above reference Sheriff’s Department, find that a substantial portion of their employees, even those who have been there for many years, have little if any accumulated sick leave. In fact, the last major national survey (2003) contracted by the department of labor added a new statistic covering employees who come to work sick so that they can save their sick leave days for more enjoyable activities. This survey indicated that 7% of sick leave usage was impacted by this new category.

On the other hand, other employment data indicates that there is an offset against the high use of sick leave. This data indicates that today’s employee work on average 200 more hours per year in the U.S. then 30 years ago. Higher levels of sick leave usage may be substantially impacted by the longer hours of work.

Regardless of the causes of sick leave abuse, however, most employers are finding it necessary to implement some type of attendants control program. Hopefully you’ll find the following information helpful in assessing your current program and looking at how it can be modified to become more effective. I believe you should give careful consideration to a number of different factors.

First, how you communicate the importance of regular attendance is going to be very important. Obviously a single message is not going to be sufficient. I recently ran across an employee handbook that dealt with the issue of attendance differently than what I have seen in the past. Typically there is a section in the employee handbook spelling out actions that will bring about discipline. Poor attendance is typically identified in this section of the handbook with varying degrees of emphasis.

Oftentimes there is a separate section of the handbook dealing with the various ways in which employment can end. Quitting, retiring, being laid off and being discharged for cause are usually mentioned. The handbook I am referencing, took pains to identify poor attendance as a basis for separation from service and gave it top billing in this section. Employees were informed that attendance issues would result in discipline and multiple days of absence without notification would be considered job abandonment resulting in separation from service.

What I particularly liked about this approach is attendance was given a specific, separate treatment. This distinctive treatment allowed the employer to put a special emphasis on attendance during employee orientation and to highlight it in the event the disciplinary action became necessary for attendance problems. The bottom line is that you need to find ways to effectively communicate the critical importance of regular attendance.

Second, while modifying existing sick leave programs, particularly if you have a labor contract, will usually raise substantial employee resistance, the “new” attitude toward sick leave usage encourages at least some adaptation. One of the most common is to shift all of the various paid leaves of absences into a single category called paid time off (PTO). If the PTO program is properly administered, it can result in better attendance, less overtime and an easier job for the supervisor. While a detailed discussion of PTO is probably a good topic for a future e-zine, I want to emphasize two elements of a PTO program. The first is that the sum total of vacation time plus sick leave plus other personal leaves should be less than the total days of PTO, but that the employee is fully entitled to use all days of PTO.

The second is that PTO is but one version of an attempt to stop rewarding employees for doing what we don’t want them to do. Sick leave typically can only be used if you’re sick. But, we don’t want people to be sick and therefore to be absent. Employees can use PTO without being sick, just like vacation. Having to use a vacation day (PTO) to cover an illness is not the same as using a day that can only be used to cover an illness.

Most importantly, notice that a PTO program can be fine tuned. One employer I know grants four days of sick leave each year but sick leave is used only on the second day of an illness. The first day is either unpaid or the employee can choose to use a vacation day PTO). This employer informs me that dramatic changes have occurred in employee usage by this simple change. Another employer I am aware of allows sick leave benefits only on the third day of an absence.

Here is a thought: if the standard homeowner was more interested in insurance money as opposed to their home, fire insurance companies would go bankrupt. Employees are no different, if they are more interested in using sick leave as opposing to banking it against future significant illnesses, then you’re sick leave program must be adapted to this attitude otherwise your costs will skyrocket.

Third, as previously noted, I have already written about no-fault attendance programs. There are a couple points, however, that I would like to emphasize about these programs as part of this e-zine. To begin, while they are probably the most difficult type of program to administer, they also have the greatest likelihood of either controlling the unwanted behavior or expediting the discharge of the employee. They are difficult because absences must be carefully monitored over a rolling twelve months. But, on the positive side, the reason for the absence is not important. The no fault program assumes that people become ill. A legitimate absence or two is of no significance in the no-fault program. It is only a repeated pattern that becomes an issue and that pattern can quickly lead to the termination of employment.

Additionally, the no-fault program operates in such a way as to give significant deference to the person who has incurred a substantial illness. This is true because the typical program revolves around an incident not simply an absence. An incident can be a one day absence or it can be a 45 day absence to recover from a heart attack. Since both are given exactly the same weight, the no-fault program does not work to the disadvantage of good employees who have a single, significant illness; hip replacement surgery comes to mind or something similar.

As noted, however, the challenge to a no-fault program is consistent management of the program. Records need to be impeccably kept and the employer needs to have the highest concern for consistency of application.

One final point on no-fault programs, what I particularly like about them is that they can be presented to emphasize that the employee is needed in the workplace. The quantity, timeliness and sometimes the quality of work suffers when employees are not present. It does not make any difference why someone is absent, the absence impacts work product. Thus, for the employer to attempt to distinguish between unexcused and excused absences may make sense as it applies to employee culpability, it makes no sense whatsoever on whether work is being performed. “We hired you because we need you and we need you all the time,” should be the message we send to our employees.

Fourth, now a word of caution. The law protects certain absences from any attendance control program. For example, an absence, covered under the American Family Medical Leave Act (AFMLA) cannot be the basis for disciplinary action under either a no-fault or other attendance program. Also, in many states, Illinois and California as examples, employees who are the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse have special rights to employment and are entitled to the same protections found in the AFLMA. Likewise absences cause by jury duty cannot be used for discipline or discharge. Additionally, in some states being subpoenaed to testify in a criminal or civil procedure cannot be cause for disciplinary action. I suggest checking with your state department of labor if you are unsure or have questions.

Note: the only protection that the Employer has against abuse for any of the above situations is the right to demand proper documentation. Self diagnosis and/or self serving statements are insufficient to trigger the protections of law. You have the right to require the documents necessary to establish the truthfulness of what the employee is asserting.

Fifth and finally, the above discussion focuses on threats, sanctions, discipline and ultimately employment termination as methods of controlling absenteeism problems. There is another side to addressing attendance problems. Do your employees experience the workplace as a positive, even if the work is not always the most personally gratifying? I have a strong suspicion that when employees enjoy coming to work that the Employer has substantially fewer problems with attendance. As you will note below, the next e-zine addresses the topic of making work a better place to be.


Next Month: so I already let it out, I plan to start a five part e-zine series on the topic of making work a better place to be. The first installment takes on the topic from a global perspective. The next four installments will break the global into specific component parts.

What barriers are there to imposing a ceiling on the accrual of vacation time?

The essence of this question involves the right of the Employer to impose a “use it or lose it” policy with regard to vacation time. Under this policy, for example, if an employee is allowed to accumulate 120 hours of vacation time, then his/her total accrual will never exceed 120 hours regardless of the accrual rate or the amount of vacation time actually taken. Since vacation accrual is typically noted on each paycheck, the amount shown on a paycheck will never exceed 120 hours regardless of whether any vacation time has been taken. Thus it is possible for the employee to receive less of a benefit then he/she is entitled to by not taking any vacation time.

One of my graduate students recently wrote a paper in which she found that in 2004 Americans gave back $22 billion worth of vacation time; obviously a very significant number which makes this a significant issue.

The question asks about barriers to imposing a use it or lose it policy. My first response is to note that it is a subject not covered under Federal wage and hour legislation. Rather it is the subject that is in almost every case covered under state regulations and found as part of administrative code (however that is depicted in each individual state). I have been most successful in finding information from individual states by looking for those provisions covering payment and collection of final wages and compensation.

I have yet to find any state that does not permit a use it or lose it policy, but the right of the employer to implement such a policy is always linked to two conditions. First the employer must clearly communicate its policy to employees. Second, the employee must have had reasonable opportunities to use vacation time. Since I believe there is always some risk to employers when employees receive a reduction in wages and/or benefits, my thought is that annual notification to each employee, perhaps the first week of January, of the use it or lose it policy and the amount of vacation time currently accrued would help fulfill the employers affirmative notice responsibilities. The employer would also, undoubtedly, be wise to have a system by which employees were given notice of potential accrual loss the pay period before any losses occurred.

Quote:

The entire world is a narrow bridge
But the main thing is not to fear.

Likutey Moharan 2:28

Continue reading...

Employee Discipline: Rethinking Strategy and Tactics

A short while ago I attended a social event and one of the other attendees had brought a local police officer as a guest. The two of us ended up in an extended conversation. It seems that he had just been notified that an appearance before the discipline review board was mandated. He was uncertain about what he was being called before the board and was clearly agitated by the fact. Our discussion focused on the way discipline was administered in the department and how the discipline review board was used as a tool of intimidation and fear.

Originally I had intended to write this e-zine on the topic of discharge for absenteeism. The above conversation, however, stimulated my interest in sharing some thoughts about why the discipline process is so often ineffective. My purpose is to focus on some basic principles that are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of your discipline program. I am offering the following seven points as a way to stimulate your thinking about the manner in which discipline is administered in your organization and the effectiveness of the discipline program.

First, the word discipline itself is intriguing because it has both a positive and negative connotation. “That child needs to be disciplined.” “She is a very disciplined employee.” How different these two sentences are. One uses the word discipline as a corrective action with the connotation of punishment in the context of something wrong. The other uses the word as an admirable characteristic related to effective performance. What I believe often gets lost is the fact that we ought be disciplining employees for the purpose of building a well disciplined team. Question, is discipline administered in your organization for the purpose of improving employee discipline? Or, do you simply punish people when they are bad?

Second, employees are disciplined for issues around misconduct and unacceptable performance. Yet when I have reviewed discipline protocols it is frequently obvious that they have been written to deal exclusively with matters of misconduct. The problem is that the two require distinctly different approaches. With matters of misconduct employees are disciplined with the expectation that whatever infraction has occurred will not happen again. Performance problems, on the other hand, are best dealt with by setting performance goals and then working with the employee over time to achieve those goals. Unacceptable performance does not generally involved an on and off switch. Rather it is a matter of growth and development. While an employee can be discharged for misconduct and/or for unacceptable performance, the path by which one arrives at the point of employment termination should be different.

Third, it is important to clearly distinguish between informal disciplinary acts and formal. Formal discipline (oral warnings, written warnings, suspensions) are usually less effective than the informal protocols (training, coaching, counseling and other softer forms of intervention) correcting and shaping employee behavior. For one thing, formal discipline is harder on the relationship between supervisor and subordinate and as such makes it more difficult to positively influence employee activities. But, formal discipline is frequently a legal or contractual necessity. My advice, do all you can informally before you move to the formal. Once you move to the formal it is generally very difficult to effectively utilize the informal.

Fourth, the culture of your organization is usually a stronger determinant of employee behavior then is your work rules and performance goals. Thus, disciplining employees may not be as effective towards changing behavior as the work you do to improve the culture; change the culture, change the behavior (this suggests another topic for an e-zine). At minimum what you need to be asking yourself when you discipline an employee is whether your other employees will support your decision to implement discipline or will they feel that your decision is unfair. While sometimes the perception that something is unfair is based on a lack of knowledge, where employees have the knowledge and your actions are viewed as inappropriate; then you have a much bigger problem than whatever you are attempting to address with the discipline.

Fifth, employee discipline tends to focus on eliminating what is not wanted. Their often seems to be an unstated assumption that if we eliminate what we don’t want, what is left will be what we do want. I doubt that this is true. If what we do want is an energized, enthusiastic and committed workforce does the discipline program help bring wayward employees into alignment with that objective? Or, does it focus on specific problems as opposed to the larger objective? You may find it advisable to benignly overlook certain problem areas while being diligent to pursue the larger goal.

Sixth, while I am a strong believer that informal tools are the best way to intervene into an employee problem, I want to be clearly on the record that you cannot ignore the formal tools if the problem has deteriorated to the point where it is clear that the informal approach will not work. When I ask human resource managers about the successful use of progressive discipline, the answer is almost always negative. They pretty much acknowledge that once they start into formal modes of discipline their goal is no longer to correct the problem but rather to satisfy whatever legal constraints there are on terminating the employment of the individual. My sense is that their reasoning is absolutely correct. If the problem by cannot be dealt with by coaching, counseling, a work plan, a memo of expectation, etc., then why do we think a two day suspension will change the employee’s basic approach to the workplace? From this perspective, therefore, the best approach I have seen to formal discipline is one found in a number of Teamster’s labor contracts. They call for termination of employment if an employee repeats an infraction, within a two year period of time, for which the employee has been previously given a written warning. The progression, then, calls for extensive informal efforts to work with the employee, followed by one written warning and then discharge.

Seventh, there is a quote from a Star Wars figure in a science fiction novel that I have often used when conducting training programs on employee discipline. It goes like this: “Always remember this; your enemy [misbehaving employee] is not wrong in his own eyes. If you keep this in mind you may make him your friend; if not, you can kill him [terminate employment] but without hate.” While recognizing that homicide is illegal in all 50 states, there is a huge amount of wisdom in this quote. I am oftentimes dismayed at the frequency with which the first principle (make the employee your friend) is ignored and instead we move directly to a vindictive action. While this is understandable within the context of the emotions that are sometimes created by serious employee misconduct, an immediate negative response will rarely bring about the desired impact on the employee and/or your work force. You can always move to discharge the employee but why not try something positive first?

I close this short essay on employee discipline by emphasizing the necessity to impose discipline “without hate.” I need say no more.

Next Month: Terminating for Absences

What options does an employer have when a supervisor begins a secret (or not-so-secret) relationship with a subordinate?

Inter-office dating is a fact of the workplace. While not the most optimal of situations, they can be innocuous enough when responsibly managed. A major problem arises when there is a differential in workplace power – when one has authority over the other. An asymmetric balance of power leads to questions of mutual consent. How can a subordinate that enters into a relationship with someone with power over them be argued to have given the same level of consent? Just as troublesome, when the relationship comes to light in the workplace the cries of bias and preferential treatment, whether real or imagined, can have terrible effects on employee morale and productivity.

What, then, can an employer do in the situation of the secret relationship… what are the options? Outright banning will not work, as it raises questions of privacy rights and may just encourage such relationships to stay underground. Remember, employers are just as liable for the fallout from relationships they’re unaware of as those going on under their noses. Keep in mind, firing one member of the relationship has proven to be legally questionable particularly if the supervisor is male and the subordinate female — a standing policy of firing the subordinate would (rightly) open the employer to allegations of sexual discrimination.

The answer, I believe, is in recognizing what an organization has a right to control and what might be considered improper interference. You have the right to control that which can be destructive to the organization. My recommendation is to craft and enforce a carefully written policy on personal relationships in the workplace. The policy needs to have at least two sections:

1. The first is a statement about the purpose and intent of the policy itself. Emphasize the fact that the policy is not to interfere in the personal lives of employees but rather to protect the employer against situations where there is an obvious and counter productive conflict of interest; guarding against circumstances that can create legal liabilities and reduce employee morale.

2. The second section needs to carefully describe the actions that are prohibited. The prohibition, however, cannot be against a personal relationship but rather against the hiring and/or supervising of a relative or close personal friend. The policy needs to particularly emphasize that employees are expected to reveal relationships where there is a conflict of interest (supervising a spouse or significant other, for example); secrecy is the big no-no.

Also, I have to confess to a certain reluctance with regard to the recommendation that one should write a policy on this issue. In general I am not a promoter of policy writing as my experience leads me to conclude that more often than not policies can get the employer in trouble. For one thing, it is always difficult to predict all of the different ways that the policy may have to be applied. As a result the policy may rise up and bite you when you are confronted with an unusual set situation. Additionally, employers all too often write the policy and then fail to enforce it. The unequal enforcement of a policy is fertile ground for plaintiff’s attorney. In this case, however, I feel that the policy is absolutely essential. Employees have a right to personal relationships, even in a superior — subordinate situation. It is not the relationship itself that is at issue. Rather it is the impact of that relationship on organizational behavior that must be addressed. This can only be managed through the development of a clear policy related to controlling the potential damage from those personal relationships that are impacting the organization.

Finally, when I consider the question that was asked it occurs to me that the “secret” relationship must have been reported by a member of the team to a higher level manager in the organization. Even without the policy, the employer has the right to confront the supervisor about any actions that compromise his or her effectiveness as a supervisor (notice that it is not the subordinate employee that one should confront). There are a number of actions that the employer can choose to do including moving one of the two parties to a different workgroup, or insisting that the subordinate employee’s performance evaluations and work assignments be under the direction of an outside supervisor. The bottom line is that the problem needs to be directly confronted.

Quote of the Month:

The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.

Joseph Joubert

Continue reading...

Making Work a Better Place to Be

This is the first e-zine that I have created in the last few months. I have spent the intervening time contemplating how I can better focus the e-zine as a HR tool. There are a number of changes that I have decided to implement. The most obvious of these is the look of the e-zine. A second objective is to make the e-zine more interactive. The addition of a reader question section is my response to this objective.

Perhaps the most significant change in focus, however, is my intention to tailor the e-zine towards my primary research and consulting interest: the creation of workplaces desirable to employees. You’ll notice that I have titled this e-zine Making Work a Better Place to Be. This title comes from a line in a song, It’s Amazing What Praising Can Do. The following are some preliminary thoughts about the steps that an organization can take to help build a desirable workplace.

• The different HR functions have to work together as a system. Recruiting, training, compensation, evaluation, and promotion all need to be in alignment with each other. All too often the different functions have different managers which result in a lack of alignment.
• The primary determinant of the employee satisfaction with the workplace is undoubtedly the organizational culture. A lot has been written about how to build a high performance, positive culture. The problem is that in all too many organizations very little has been done to consciously work on creating the culture. As a result the organizational culture is a product of the informal interactions of employees.
• I am convinced that the work we do with new employees during the first three months of their employment is a critical factor in shaping a positive workplace. This honeymoon period is the best time to shape positive attitudes and to ensure that the new employee is appropriately integrated into the culture.
• If you read the book, First Break all the Rules, you will find the empirical evidence to establish that one of the most significant factors in retaining high performing employees is the relationship between the employee and his or her immediate supervisor. Supervisor training needs to stress this fact above all others.
• There is an old adage, “I am professional; I do not need to like you in order to be able to work with you.” While in too many cases that adage needs to be true in order for work to be completed, the other side of the coin is that high performance is most certainly a product of alignment and collaboration. More importantly, working under the stress of unhappy relationships clearly does not create a positive workplace.
• Workplace conflict is important and necessary because it is the stimulus to needed change. Feuding and disputing are all too often an unfortunate side product of conflict. There is no positive benefit to feuding and disputing. Every organization needs to adopt methods by which to encourage constructive conflict without the feuding and disputing.
• Recognizing the contributions of each employee is one of the most powerful tools management has to encourage high performance and positive change. Not all recognition programs, however, work. Designing and implementing a recognition program that accomplishes its objectives is critical to organizational effectiveness. Additionally, the employee recognition program is a critical tool towards building a positive workplace.
• Employee recognition, high levels of collaboration, positive supervisor and subordinate relationships, all of these are wonderful. Unfortunately, there are times when management must demonstrate the ability to have a “hard edge” in order to ensure that these positive expressions will dominate the workplace. Disrespect, dishonesty, maliciousness our all cancers in the workplace and must be stamped out. Thus, where positive steps fail to resolve the problem, firm, fair, effective, formal discipline must be administered which includes the right/responsibility to remove the cancer from the workplace.

As you have probably surmised, each of the above bullet points is destined to become the focus of a future e-zine. My intention is to provide both concept and action steps. My hope is that you will find this material helpful to you.

Next Month’s Topic: B.S., F.U., B.H.: Dealing with Obscenity in the Workplace

Reader Question

Due to illness and vacation, I was left short-staffed. I had to have two of my employees work nine days in a row in order to maintain minimal staffing. Was I in violation of any laws by scheduling such a long stretch of work?

Federal legislation is silent on the topic of maximum weekly working hours for most non-minor employees, as long as minimum wage and overtime laws are observed. State laws frequently add some restrictions, however. For example, both California and Illinois have statutes requiring one full day of rest for every seven-day period.

California allows for longer stretches of work than six days for situations that reasonably require them, as long as there are enough days of rest in a calendar month to make the ratio of days worked to rest days at least six to one. Illinois does not make this exception, but lifts the requirement from executive, administrative and professional workers (among others). Consult your state Department of Labor for more information on this and other topics relating to wage and hour legislation.

Note: Do you have a perplexing HR question? Send us the question by clicking on thehawthornegroup@msn.com and let us take a shot at answering it. We will select one question each month and research it. Please indicate whether we have permission to publish your name and organization when identifying the question .

Books of the Month

Professional Growth Are you tired of the ditty, ‘think outside the box?” Then, you will find value in reading this month’s fast paced selection which encourages us to get back to the basics.

Get Back in the Box – Douglas Rushkoff

Personal Growth Parker Palmer is one of my favorite authors and his most recent book explores in a very meaningful way the path to being a whole person

The Hidden Wholeness – Parker Palmer

Quote of the Month

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experiences of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.

Helen Keller

Continue reading...

Administrivia, the Bane of Human Resource Management

Recently I was reading a copy of Fast Company Magazine, one of my favorite sources for recent information about business and organizational life, when I ran across an article I found totally intriguing. The title of the article was, “Why We Hate HR.” The article was written by Keith Hammonds, the deputy editor of Fast Company Magazine, and can be found in issue 97 (August 2005) at page 40. I found this article stimulating enough that it drove me to provide my reaction in written form.

At the outset of this article, the author announces that he does not like HR, and goes on to explain why:

The Human-Resources trade long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil – and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change. HR is the corporate function with the greatest potential – the key driver, in theory, in business performance – and also, the one that most consistently under-delivers.

One of my favorite sports talk shows has a segment in which the listener can call in and give a “rant.” This article, which is about eight pages long, is a great rant. Yet, based on my HR experience, the quality of the rant is in part a reflection of the accuracy of the diagnosis.

HR will only achieve its promise, from the point of view of the article, if it begins to focus on being strategic and providing organizational leadership. HR needs to be a major player in designing and implementing strategies for organizational effectiveness, and it must provide leadership towards promoting and ensuring high levels of employee performance. In the author’s view, those two functions are given lip service but are simply not a part of the main HR menu in most organizations.

My intention is to use the e-zines that will follow in the next few months for the purpose of setting forth some thoughts on how to change the path of HR towards achieving its potential. In this e-zine I want to begin this project by noting the difference between the tasks that are most frequently assigned to the HR department and how they relate to the larger goal of providing strategy and leadership. To put it bluntly, the picture is not very bright.

Many of the tasks assigned to HR can at best be called administrivia. Tasks such as pay, benefits, and retirement can all be put into this classification. Obviously, each of those areas is extremely important. Making sure that employees are promptly and correctly paid and dealing with their medical insurance issues, to focus on a couple, are all time-consuming and vital activities but, at a basic level, entirely irrelevant to the success of the organization. As to evidence for my conclusion that these activities are not important to the success of the organization, I will simply point to the fact that they are increasingly being sub-contracted to an outside firms. Surprise! In many cases outside firms can perform HR tasks more efficiently and cost effectively then the HR Department. Clearly, if your prime activities involve fulfilling functions that can be easily farmed out and are not core to the success of the organization, it is not surprising to see why the individuals engaged in these activities will not be viewed by the organization as strategic and leaders. Moreover, I believe it is reasonable to assume that it will be difficult for HR to focus on administrivia, and still retain high levels of competency related to strategy and leadership. There is a fundamental belief that good peace-time generals do not make good war-time generals. The demands on the position of general are significantly different from peace-time to war-time.

Question: what “rules” in your HR Department? Administrivia? Those functions have to be done, but they do not have to rule.

Hopefully, the point that I am trying to make is now clear, and I have set the table for the next e-zine which will begin to look at the process of revitalizing the HR function.

Quote of the Month:

To unleash the extraordinary efforts of your workforce, you must first believe this to be possible. Then, you must make sure that your people have the resources, support, and freedom to meet the challenges – or seize the opportunities – when they present themselves. – Libby Sartain, Chief People Officer, Yahoo! Inc.

Continue reading...