What is Your Focus?

Almost everyday you can pick up a copy of the newspaper or turn on the TV News and hear about an organization which has announced that it is cutting jobs to lower costs. In this current economic climate I can totally understand wanting to reduce costs. However I ask you what is your goal - to sustain the organization for the long haul or to satisfy the stockholders for a quick response to economic "dire" warnings?

Lets consider the two perspectives in place in many organizations. The first one is based in the concept that our human capital are nothing more than an expense item. When the organization is blowing results out of the water, we tend to hire based on the demand. s a result when we find that the economic conditions are headed in the opposite direction the first reaction by many management  members is to see how you can cut costs. This includes cutting staff. In order to meet the demands of the board of directors and other stakeholders the strategic direction is cut costs at any cost to the organization Never mind that as you cut overhead we forget that the workload does not get less. In its place you have added to the stress level within the organization. Typically we find eventually that work does not get don eon time alienating the organizational customers. While we may have helped meet the demands of the stakeholders we have not helped the future of the organization

Consider the other side of the coin if you will. In this scenario we find a total different view of management. They recognize that our greatest asset is the innovation and thought processes of our human capital. Management fully understands while the short term solution seems to be the logical route, in actuality we have failed to recognize what the knowledge drain will mean to the corporation.

Consider this: There was a company about five years ago who decided that the sure fire method to cut costs was to offer early buy out to anyone with 20+ years with the company. Almost all the employees took the corporation up on their offer and they were out of business in 6 months.

So lets turn this into a strategic discussion - You are in an industry where sales are dropping due to the economy and its trials and tribulations. So what do you do? The fir thing I would tell you that unless you are planning to close your doors, N0 ONE SHOULD BE LAID OFF. Let me repeat that, no one should be laid off. There are other ways to reduce costs and keep the organization flowing. Review the organizational widgets ( We all have them whether we make something or not) and locate the ways we are spending money out the door due to wasteful activities. If you are thinking, we don't do that here, go ask your clients how well you are meeting their needs. Jay Arthur in his book Free, Perfect and Now suggests that for every $100 of corporate spend, you are wasting between 25-40 in wastes. On a continuous basis review how you are doing business to cut these wastes from the operation.

Talk with your human capital assets and let them know a true picture of how the organization is functioning. Talk with them about ways to everyone pitch in to save the organization for the long term. Talk to them about TEMPORARY job sharing. Talk to them about shortening the work week.Each and everyone of these strategies is designed to save the organization monies and not hurt the future of the company. Understand that if you have a problem meeting customer needs, cutting staff is not going to meet the customer needs. If you are not meeting the customer needs there is something. wrong with the internal processes.

So here is your dilemma -  we recognize the value of the intellectual properties of our leased, non-owned corporate assets, but we are getting extreme pressure from stakeholders to maximize their return on investment.You need to demonstrate to the stakeholders that the maximum return on investment is not on financial returns for next week or next month. Maximum return on investment is based on what the organization looks like five or ten years down the road. We do not maximize the ROI on the back of our keys to innovation.

Take the time to review how you picture the organization in the future. Make the necessary changes to enhance the level of employee engagement within the organization. Think ahead as to what your product or service is going to look like in response to the voice of the customer and start preparing your human capital to be ready for when the time comes. Promise them that unless you are planning to go bankrupt or close your doors, we are going to plan on maintaining all staffing levels. We are going to the very best we can to establish our rightful place within the business community. We are not going to promise the rose garden if we can't deliver it.

So here is your path in front of you - one fork is to follow the path to short term responses to the demands of the organization. The other fork is to look at how to sustain the brand and the reputation for the long haul. One fork looks at the here and now the other looks at the future. A future which can be bright, vibrant and fully supportive of the path the organization has chosen. You make the decision.

By the way let me know are you stuck in the short term quagmire or are you following the yellow brick road to the future, where your bottom line increases because of the steps taken by the entire organization- rank and file and management together in consultation to improve the end result of the organizational voice of the customer requests.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

What is Your Focus?

Almost everyday you can pick up a copy of the newspaper or turn on the TV News and hear about an organization which has announced that it is cutting jobs to lower costs. In this current economic climate I can totally understand wanting to reduce costs. However I ask you what is your goal - to sustain the organization for the long haul or to satisfy the stockholders for a quick response to economic "dire" warnings?

Lets consider the two perspectives in place in many organizations. The first one is based in the concept that our human capital are nothing more than an expense item. When the organization is blowing results out of the water, we tend to hire based on the demand. s a result when we find that the economic conditions are headed in the opposite direction the first reaction by many management  members is to see how you can cut costs. This includes cutting staff. In order to meet the demands of the board of directors and other stakeholders the strategic direction is cut costs at any cost to the organization Never mind that as you cut overhead we forget that the workload does not get less. In its place you have added to the stress level within the organization. Typically we find eventually that work does not get don eon time alienating the organizational customers. While we may have helped meet the demands of the stakeholders we have not helped the future of the organization

Consider the other side of the coin if you will. In this scenario we find a total different view of management. They recognize that our greatest asset is the innovation and thought processes of our human capital. Management fully understands while the short term solution seems to be the logical route, in actuality we have failed to recognize what the knowledge drain will mean to the corporation.

Consider this: There was a company about five years ago who decided that the sure fire method to cut costs was to offer early buy out to anyone with 20+ years with the company. Almost all the employees took the corporation up on their offer and they were out of business in 6 months.

So lets turn this into a strategic discussion - You are in an industry where sales are dropping due to the economy and its trials and tribulations. So what do you do? The fir thing I would tell you that unless you are planning to close your doors, N0 ONE SHOULD BE LAID OFF. Let me repeat that, no one should be laid off. There are other ways to reduce costs and keep the organization flowing. Review the organizational widgets ( We all have them whether we make something or not) and locate the ways we are spending money out the door due to wasteful activities. If you are thinking, we don't do that here, go ask your clients how well you are meeting their needs. Jay Arthur in his book Free, Perfect and Now suggests that for every $100 of corporate spend, you are wasting between 25-40 in wastes. On a continuous basis review how you are doing business to cut these wastes from the operation.

Talk with your human capital assets and let them know a true picture of how the organization is functioning. Talk with them about ways to everyone pitch in to save the organization for the long term. Talk to them about TEMPORARY job sharing. Talk to them about shortening the work week.Each and everyone of these strategies is designed to save the organization monies and not hurt the future of the company. Understand that if you have a problem meeting customer needs, cutting staff is not going to meet the customer needs. If you are not meeting the customer needs there is something. wrong with the internal processes.

So here is your dilemma -  we recognize the value of the intellectual properties of our leased, non-owned corporate assets, but we are getting extreme pressure from stakeholders to maximize their return on investment.You need to demonstrate to the stakeholders that the maximum return on investment is not on financial returns for next week or next month. Maximum return on investment is based on what the organization looks like five or ten years down the road. We do not maximize the ROI on the back of our keys to innovation.

Take the time to review how you picture the organization in the future. Make the necessary changes to enhance the level of employee engagement within the organization. Think ahead as to what your product or service is going to look like in response to the voice of the customer and start preparing your human capital to be ready for when the time comes. Promise them that unless you are planning to go bankrupt or close your doors, we are going to plan on maintaining all staffing levels. We are going to the very best we can to establish our rightful place within the business community. We are not going to promise the rose garden if we can't deliver it.

So here is your path in front of you - one fork is to follow the path to short term responses to the demands of the organization. The other fork is to look at how to sustain the brand and the reputation for the long haul. One fork looks at the here and now the other looks at the future. A future which can be bright, vibrant and fully supportive of the path the organization has chosen. You make the decision.

By the way let me know are you stuck in the short term quagmire or are you following the yellow brick road to the future, where your bottom line increases because of the steps taken by the entire organization- rank and file and management together in consultation to improve the end result of the organizational voice of the customer requests.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

What is wrong with this picture?

CNN Money is reporting that US Manufacturing organizations are having so much trouble finding the essentiaal talent that they are going abroad to find the right person for the right job at the right time. At the same time local newspapers ran a syndicated column reporting that US employers see nothing wrong with refusing to interview the long term employed.

We reportedly have an unemployment issue in this country, organizations can't find qualified talent for their openings and yet we forget some of the tenants of why businesses were started in the first place. I am in the middle of reading the book "The Chocolate Wars" which discusses the creation and mission statement of the Cadbury Choloate Company. They operated under the premise of the Quaker Business Model which saw the mission of business entities to care for their employees. we do not do that anymore.

The Quaker Business Model was grounded in the following principles:

•  The real goal for an employer is to seek for others the best life of which they are capable
• Worked together towards a common goal which were in the community's best interest.e
• Pioneers in employee welfare and labor relations
• Employees encouraged to get further education at company expense
• Established medical and dental departments and pension funds

The result was that they had engaged, productive employees. We were not seeing this employee undercurrent of distrust and stress that we see in many of today's organizations. I hear many of my colelagues express that we need to change Washington to a more business orientation. But what about business once again recognizing that your employees are the life blood of your organization. They are the ones that pursue your brand to your customers. Take some time and think about what an orgnization of decicated engaged employees could mean to your operations?

 

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Listen to the voice, hear the disconnect

Almost everyday I open my email and see one report or another which reports that employers are complaining that in certain fields they are having problems sourcing, locating and hiring the right talent. The I turn around and see articles about where, like in Florida at the present time, where they are talking about cutting funding for the colleges and universities. Their first reaction is that they are going to have to in turn cut the research dollars.

I totally understand the impact that university based R&D has on society as a whole. However I would contend that these projects do nothing for resolving the talent shortage problems. They are great for the university image but the average student is not helped by them in a real way- finding a job and getting a paycheck.

We need to stop and listen to the voice of the customer--the business world--as to what they need to succeed in today's global workplace. We need to change the university system to be based on not what you can innovate or write but rather we need to move the concentration of the institutions to professors who are there because they want to teach. They are there because they want to be resources for the next generation of workers.

This concept was tried once before and the institution was crucified by the establishment universities and the politically based regional accreditation organizations. We are in a world of change but these organizations are stuck in a back to the future mode which says very little about their meeting the needs of the community. A new method or better way is suggested and like everyone else they hate change or the idea of it.This "new" concept was referred to as the Parsons Plan and it attracted some of the best educators in the country who saw the benefits of teaching not researching or writing.

The Parsons Plan recognized the unique contributions these individuals brought to the table and based their compensation on what they taught and how their students demonstrated the mastery needed to enter the workforce. It did not base the tenure of the professor on how much they wrote or how much time they spent in the lab.

I am all for standards of quality to ensure that we are turning out new talent who will become tomorrows leaders.Just make the standards stand for something that benefits all rather then a select few.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

EEOC weighs in on ADA and educational requirements

Do you have educational requirements for your positions? According to the EEOC you might be going down a slippery slope. In an informal advice memo they stated  the following:

If an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of “disability,” the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The employer will not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.

Even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Do you know what your Social Media ROI is?

The most recent article of CFO magazine contains an excellent article regarding how to calculate the ROI of your social media efforts. The article can be accessed at http://www3.cfo.com/article/2012/2/technology_social-media-roi

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

I Look but Do I see?

For about the last 3 weeks there has been a continuing post about an occurrence in the nation's capital from 2007 as part of an experiment of the Washington Post. You can see the link at . So here is my question how many of us go through the same kind of situation at work. How many of us as managers in or out of the HR staffing area tend to ignore what is going on around us?

Everyday we witness people within our organizations who are doing outstanding things with the tools we provide them. They are producing for our organizations above and beyond what we expect. Our usual response is a cavalier attitude which basically says that's great but you really do not need to spend the extra time. Do not spend the extra time to make a customer feel like the organization cares. Do not spend the extra time to assist your fellow employee because it might send the wrong message--What ever the wrong message is.

If we expect our human capital to be engaged in our organization we need to take the time to recognize the worth of our employee base and respect those who go out of their way to do more than just getting by.

For those of you who have not seen the story behind the above thoughts, see below:

"In Washington DC , at a Metro Station, on a cold January morning in 2007, a man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, approximately 2000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After about four minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then he hurried on to meet his schedule. About four minutes later, the violinist received his first dollar. A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk. At six minutes, a young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again. At ten minutes, a three-year old boy stopped, but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time. This action was repeated by several other children, but every parent - without exception - forced their children to move on quickly. At forty-five minutes: The musician played continuously. Only six people stopped and listened for a short while. About twenty gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32. After one hour: He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed and no one applauded. There was no recognition at all. No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before, Joshua Bell sold-out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100 each to sit and listen to him play the same music. This is a true story. Joshua Bell, playing incognito in the D.C. Metro Station, was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people’s priorities. This experiment raised several questions: In a common-place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? If so, do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context? One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made… How many other things are we missing as we rush through life?"

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Friday HR in the News

Issue #1: The EBINC.com website has reported that there are new guidelines for drug testing in the workplace. EBI reports that the changes are:

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) recently announced that the agency has accepted the recommendations of the Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) to revise the DHHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs in the following two areas: 

1. Expand the drug testing panel to include additional Schedule II prescription medications (e.g. hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone)  prescription painkiller opioid drugs, and;
2. Include oral fluid as an alternative specimen for Federal Drug Free Workplace Programs (DFWP) testing. 

This is certainly great news to help support workplace drug testing programs as it provides more tools for employers to detect drugs of abuse. The Department of Transportation (DOT) will now be tasked with making a rulemaking change to finalize this rollout.  Understand that there will be continued deliberation, debate and also comment before these changes are put into place.  It could take several months before this will actually affect federal drug testing programs.

Issue #2 : Wolters Kleurer reports that The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a final rule that extends its existing recordkeeping requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA to entities that are covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), according to a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on February 3, 2012.

Title II of GINA protects job applicants, current and former employees, labor union members, and apprentices and trainees from discrimination based on their genetic information. Title II of GINA, like VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, covers employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor unions, and joint labor-management training programs, as well as federal sector employers.

GINA was signed into law on May 21, 2008; Title II became effective on November 21, 2009. The commission has issued interpretive regulations under GINA (75 FR 68912), as well as a final rule implementing changes to its administrative and procedural regulations (74 FR 63981).

Issue #3: Do you have operations in the state of Indiana? The Governor has just signed new legislation which makes the state the first state in the midwest and the first in a decade to proclaim the state of Indiana is now a right to work state.

:

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed