Big red bulls eye changes policy - sign of the times or bad move?

As I do most mornings I was watching Good Morning America and across the bottom of the screen in their news scroll was an item which stated that Target had announced that they were removing from their employment application all questions pertaining to criminal records or offenses. Which poses the question above—is this a sign of the times or a bad move?

There is much that can be said for either response. In a letter dated August 29, 2013 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a response to a request to reconsider their April 2012 policy statement titled Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that there was the potential for disparate treatment under Title VII because of the tendency for certain demographic criteria being more inclined to be subject to criminal records than others.  The EEOC never said that it was illegal to ask questions regarding criminal background checks; it only said that the use of them should be carefully analyzed to insure that you are not eliminating good candidates solely on the existence of a criminal record. Consider this as an example.

In order to keep the privacy of the parties in tact in will not name the parties, but there is a case in this country of an individual who had sexual relations with his girlfriend who was 15 when he was 17. He has been labeled as a Sexual Predator and a convicted felon. Would you look at his application for employment and immediately rule him out? Also on the news this morning was the case of a man released from prison on a murder charge, which DNA proved he never committed 20 years after the fact? Would you rule him out for possible employment?

Do not take the tone of this post incorrectly. I firmly believe that there is a proper time and place for criminal background checks. In another life, while working for an international security agency I completed background checks for a national media organization. If you are dealing with a position that entails access to huge sums of money, do them. If you are dealing with issues that affect national security, do them. If you are going to be working with the vulnerable parts of our society (children and elderly) do them. But if you dealing with a rank and file employee be darn sure that you can justify their use.

This brings us to the question at hand. Target has said they are going to remove the questions pertaining to criminal records from their employment application. In a post on ThinkProgress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/29/2851711/target-employment-offenders/) Target stated that starting at the beginning of next year, Target will wait until making a provisional job offer before inquiring about a prospective employee’s criminal record, giving candidates the chance to make their case before an employer passes judgment. The company’s decision comes just a few months after Minnesota — where Target is headquartered — approved a “Ban the Box” statute.

“The Box” can be one of the main barriers of re-entry for people with a criminal past. When an employer sees that box checked, it can be an automatic disqualifier. And the practice is so widespread that it can really hurt the chances for employment for ex-offenders. Surveys show that between 60 and 75 percent of people with a criminal past can’t find a job for up to a year after they’ve been released.

Employment discrimination along these lines can also contribute to higher recidivism rates; when former inmates can’t find a job, they might feel that illegal activities — say drug dealing or theft — are their only inroad toward having money to live.

Does your organization use blanket criminal question son the application? Does a positive response automatically generate a denial of employment? Can you justify that policy? Would love to hear from you on your thoughts.

Would you bake only a third of a pie?

It is coming up on the holiday season and some of you will begin to bake cakes and pies for the celebrations which soon follow. Many of you will follow recipes that have been handed down over generations in your families. But what if someone came to you and said “This year why don’t you only make a third of a pie?” Sound ridiculous?

We in essence ask the same question when we make the statement we only do lean or we only do six sigma. This is like cooking a third of a pie. Let me explain the argument. 

See more at http://humanresourcestrategist.wordpress.com

There is something missing out there

Human Resource Executive magazine in their September 16 issue reported the results of the 2013 “What’s Keeping You Up at Night” survey. As in past years 35% of the respondents replied that getting employees engaged within the organization. The ongoing solution was employee engagement surveys every 12-16 months. While surveys are fine, they tend not to explain some of the reasons for the non-engagement.

Without exception every organization is seeking to find and retain engaged employees to make their operations run smoother, but there is a constant disconnect between what the employee needs or wants and what most organizations are willing to provide.

·         We tell our human capital assets that we want them to be engaged but we submit them to rigorous command and control tactics on the part of management. The message is not become engaged, become this robot that does as they are commanded to do and do not stray from the message. We tell our employees that we want engagement but than do not recognize their value in the workplace.

·         We tell our human capital assets that we want engagement, but even though the organization is not on its final legs financially, we hire and then fire on a regular basis. We send the message that our employees are of value only during good times.

When we look for engagement we are seeking an environment where the employment basis is aligned with the organization in its initiatives and is customers. Kevin Duggan defines operational excellence as the acquisition and integration of passionate and culturally aligned employees who are engaged and aligned with the organization’s goals and in which the employee is empowered to make changes to the corporate processes which are slowing down the productivity with or without approval from management. Engaged employees respond best when they feel and are confident that management is relying on the true experts within the organization on what is working and what is not.

So what is missing out there? What is missing is the majority of organizations who utilize employee engagement survey only to learn that 70% of their knowledge base is considering jumping ship because the organization is not working for them. What is missing is the majority of organizations who seek engagement but still consider their human capital assets as just numbers on an expense sheet. What is missing is the majority of organizations that do not fully understand that their employees in today’s workplace are seeking a workplace environment which brings value to their lives. Failure to do so means they jump ship in search of an organization that will meet those needs. I have in my work career had those micromanagers that in the course of their dealings with the human capital assets of the organization kill the engagement piece due to the feeling that everything they do does not meet the demands of the manager. The manager fails to appreciate that those assets today are non-owned leased assets and they can move as quickly as tomorrow.

So realistically how engaged are your human capital assets? Is your response based on the results of employee engagement surveys or does management truly rely on the feelings of the front line worker as to how the organization is functioning? It is not too late for you as a strategic, innovative and aligned organization to change the direction you are currently headed to focus on the employees and the voice of the customer.