I am just 21 years old. Currently I am pursuing a graduate degree in HR through correspondence college.But at the same time,I am working as an HR Executive with one of the reputed BPO.As I am very much passionate about my career,so I started to work as an HR after completing my graduation only.At present,I have one year experience in HR including recruitment and HR operation.Being a girl,my friends and my parents really feel proud about me that I am on a right track of my career.
I joined my current company in the month of October,2009.The company with whom I am working now,it is already settled in IT.But,they are very new into BPO business.So I joined this BPO by thinking that at the initial stage of career,I will get opportunity to learn as well as grow.But after joining,I came to know that HR policies are not in place.For every single thing,I need to struggle.My HR manager is not with me.He is handling everything from a different City.Even,employees have lot many issues about the policies and facilities like salary(which is a big concern),HR policies etc.But,management says that it will take time to streamline everything.
Now,I started to feel very insecure that I took a very important decision to join this company and the company situation is forcing me to rethink on my decision.Normally,I always believe on myself and my decisions.That's why,while taking this decision,I never discussed with anybody.
I can not leave also because before accepting this offer I rejected other offers by thinking that this company is offering me good designation as well as package.Now I am in a big mess.But,still I feel that this company is a reputed company in IT market so they will try to settle in BPO as well.So let them give a chance and continue my work.In short,I am confused and double minded about my decision.
Can you please advice me that what should I suppose to do in this condition as I am very much concerned about my career?
Take a deep breath.
You've answered your own question, by they way. You'll notice that I put a few lines in bold. This is to draw your attention to them. You said you wanted to learn and grow, which is why you took this job. The company doesn't have policies in place, your manager is at a different location and things are not peachy keen. This is what we call an ideal situation for learning and growing.
There's a reason it's called work, and that's because it is hard. You've landed a hard job and it isn't the dreamy world of a "career" that you wanted. When I was young and stupid I wanted a "job" that would require a suit and heels, because that must be an important job. I had an idea of what "business" was and somehow the suit was an important part of it. I found out rather quickly that this was neither an indication of power nor importance, but of business culture.
You had some idea of what it meant to be in a learning and growing position. I bet it involved a mentor, who would listen to you and guide you and it would be like college except with a paycheck. Instead, you found out that it is thinking on the fly, figuring things out, dealing with crisis after crisis and doing this, mostly on your own. Welcome to the real world.
Your company has troubles. They hired you to help figure those out. You do need a mentor, but you'll have to do the work to get the mentoring. Having an offsite boss can be a difficult thing. Figure out how he prefers to communicate with his offsite people--is it e-mail, phone or occasional face-to-face meetings. See if you can establish regular contact with him.
Find out what his goals and priorities are and figure out how he can meet them. At one point I was telecommuting and my boss was one of those super-de-duper busy VPs so I couldn't really call her to chat. What I did was send her a weekly status report on everything I had done that week and what I planned to do the next week. This gave her the opportunity to stop me from investing huge amounts of time in a project that she was planning to kill, but hadn't gotten around to telling me about yet.
You may have to explain and remind your boss that you need a little bit of guidance. If he's not amenable to providing guidance, well, then you create policies and then present them to him.
You wanted learning and growing and by golly you got it! I understand that you are now second guessing yourself, but it's a little late for that. Plunge forward. Give it at least a year before you begin looking for a new job. You may find that this is the best experience of your life. But, you have to go forward with full steam. If you keep saying to yourself, "I should have asked for advice from my parents/friends/professors before I did this. This was probably the wrong decision" it will show in how you attack your work.
Your management said it will take time. They are right. Policies, procedures and company culture don't appear out of thin air. It takes time. Find out from your boss what your role is in this whole process.
And one more petty little thought: Back in the dark ages, when I was in school, we were taught to put double spaces between sentences. I understand single spaces are acceptable now. Fine. Pick one and stick with it.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Getting Stuck with a Problem
I am an executive director for a small company, and I report directly to the company president. The office hours for my company are 8 am to 5 pm, and every employee has to badge is and no one is required to badge out. All employees, exempt and non-exempt, enter their arrival and departure times into the company time-tracking system.
There is a director (Mr. X, we'll call him) who is a problematic performer. Among other things, he consistently arrives at the office 10-25 minutes late, and frequently much more than that. By consistent, I mean that his on-time percentage is 12% for the year to date - that means that he's arrived on time >10 days since the first working day of 2009. Traffic is not a problem - I live in the same general area as Mr. X, and I can get to work early or on time every single day under normal traffic conditions (it takes about 20 minutes).
Mr. X also frequently leaves early, particularly during the spring months, when he coaches his daughter's Little League team. On the occasions that he's stayed an hour late or worked through lunch, he's left early some other day that week and requested that he be given "comp" time for the extra hour or two that he worked (not recognizing that his late arrivals mean he's robbed the company of 1+ hours of time each week). Basically, whenever he works more than 40 hours a week, he wants additional compensation. This request is uniformly denied, but he can't seem to figure out that he's not entitled to special privileges, so he just keeps asking. I would note that there are many employees (exempt, of course) who routinely work 15 hour days, come into the office on Saturdays and Sundays and work through holidays. They don't get comp time either.
Because he's a director, in addition to a generous vacation allotment, he gets 80 hours a year of "management time" - which is intended to be used to cover portions of the work day when such an employee needs to be away from the office on personal business (taking a family member to the doctor, getting a car repaired, etc). This time is not intended to supplement vacation time. Of course, Mr. X has never applied this time to his late arrivals, and until he was threatened with termination earlier this year, he wouldn't apply it to the 30-60 mins of his frequent early departures. As of the end of June, Mr. X used up 75% of his management time allotment, because he was leaving early three times a week for 6 weeks.
Please note, I've not been tracking Mr. X's arrival time for my own "pleasure". After an incident this summer, when he "misreported" time - that is to say, lied - on his time sheet, I was asked to look at his entire on-time performance and PTO usage and provide a regular report to the President. That's how I happen to know the details of his badge in time and on-time performance - but all the other managers and directors know the guy show up late because there is a daily management call to catch up on operational and project issues that occurred overnight (we have offices in the middle and far east). The call is scheduled at a time that gives everyone who gets to work on time enough time to get a cup of coffee and go through email and open up the previous night's status reports, and is also comfortable for our overseas managers to participate (there are 8 and 14 hour time differences to deal with). Because Mr. X arrives either just as the call starts or is in progress, he has not had the chance to review any of the incoming emails and reports, so he is playing catch up, and because he's trying to read the emails while the call is on-going he's never on the same line, frequently asking everyone to backtrack, slow down or skip and come back. This slows down the progress of what is supposed to be a quick 15 minute meeting, frequently extending it by 10 minutes or more. Everyone else is prepared and is fully able to participate.
There are other issues with Mr. X's performance as well - he cannot make a decision for himself (which is my chief complaint, because he's a time sink - tying up personnel who need to do their own work). He constantly seeks confirmation of his point of view from other managers, and then he tries to create a wall of deniability in case his decision was not the correct one. He badgers mid-level staff for immediate responses to his inquiries but in turn ignores the requests of lower level staff, his peers and (in the case of my requests) his superiors. At one point, a client had started paperwork to terminate a contract because their interactions with Mr. X were such a problem. Work product that has gone to clients is often full of errors, both substantive and technical. Of course, Mr. X sees no deficiencies in his performance and has a greatly inflated view of his importance and the quality of his work product. But, at the end of the day, his work is just good enough to get by on, but only just.
So - why is this guy still here? I've never gotten a good answer on that. As I noted, he reports directly to the company president, who can't stand him - but for some reason refuses to terminate him. However, there is going to be an organizational restructuring in the very near term, and I fully expect that Mr. X will be transferred to my department - his function dovetails into areas I oversee. This will be interesting, since Mr. X has always seen me as a threat, and for some reason, doesn't understand that I am senior to him in the organization - in terms of authority, responsibility and impact. I let this slide, because - as I said, we're a small company and I've got to work with him on a daily basis, and it's not the culture of the company to pull rank.
These are my question:
1. When the transfer occurs, can I and should I do a full performance assessment with him (he would have already gotten an annual review for the prior year's work)?
2. If so, do I have to start from scratch, building up a file on his performance deficiencies only from the time he was transferred to my department, or can I use my prior observations and interactions.
3 . Regarding his abuse of time, since there is no requirement to badge out at the end of the day, can I require Mr. X to do so, in light of his habit of early departure? I should note that he parks away from the employee parking lot and does not use the employee entrance (he's the only one who does this), presumably so no one can see him enter and leave. He also refuses to shut down his computer and sign out of the company's IM program - so no one knows when he's out of the office. He is the only person who does this - when I was doing an investigation of the timesheet incident, I had to pull the server logs to see if I could ascertain departure times by when he logged off of the network.
In the past, when I've had to discuss the Mr. X problems with the company president, he (the president) has jokingly said that he'll make Mr. X report to me - and I've not-so-jokingly said that I'd fire the guy immediately.
What can I do?
Whew! I'm going to get on my soap box first and then answer your questions. It's my blog, so if I choose to do be all soap-boxish, I can.
Knock off the hour monitoring. Really. The 80 hours "management" time sounds awesome except when you realize that it's utterly ridiculous to require exempt employees to track when they take an hour off for a doctor's appointment. You should be managing your exempt employees on performance only. If they can get everything done in 25 hours a week, yippee for them. If they can do it while sitting on their living couch, wearing a bathrobe with Oprah playing in the background, then super-de-duper. Most people, of course, can't. (And if you have an exempt employee who can get it all done in 25 hours per week, dump some more work on that employee!)
You'll note that this guy has problems far beyond he's 20 minutes late to work every day. Duh. Because his problem isn't that he's late to work, his problem is that he's a terrible employee.
The problem with his late arrivals and early departures are that it affects the rest of the team. He's not prepared for the morning call. He can't be reached when he's coaching Little League. I know plenty of people who could coach Little League and have their work be completely unaffected.
And now to your specific problems.
First, I would sit down with the company president and say, "What is keeping you from firing Mr. X?"
If the answer is, "he's awfully annoying, but his work is stellar. He manages our biggest client who just loves him," well then you suck it up and understand that what you've got is a non-conventional worker. You work with Mr. X to come to an understanding of what he needs to soar and support him in that. Perhaps he gets a blackberry so he can check his e-mail in the morning while he's waiting for the school bus to pick up his daughters, which is why he's late every day.
If, more likely, the answer is, "he'll sue us!" Ask for what? Honestly. Discrimination against lazy people? He's has daughters in little league, so I'm guessing he might be over 40, which puts him in a protective class. However, even so, you can still fire someone in a protective class. You just can't fire them because they are in the protective class.
If you are afraid of lawsuits I see two options:
Option 1: Offer Mr. X a reasonable severance package. (3-6 months because he sounds fairly high level.) In exchange he signs a General Release, which means he agrees not to sue the company. You need to hire a labor & employment lawyer to help you with this. YOU CANNOT JUST WRITE UP A PIECE OF PAPER YOURSELF. Sorry, I should have used bold instead of all caps, but what is done is done.
If he doesn't sign, he's terminated anyway, but no cash. Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't usually the jackpot kind and attorneys won't take a case they don't think they can win. If your attorney feels like it's a low risk, it's a low risk.
Option 2: Get the company president to begin a termination procedure now. He sits down with Mr. X and says, "Your performance is not up to par." He then details the problems and presents Mr. X with a plan, no longer than 90 days.
This plan can include things like showing up for work on time and not leaving early, because those behaviors are contributing to problems with performance, not because I think you should be monitoring an exempt employee's hours.
Now, if your boss says he isn't firing Mr. X because "Mr. X has a family support" and "how could we be so cruel?" I'd point out that Mr. X is making a choice to behave in a way that could negatively affect his family and that there are many people out there who have the responsibility to support a family who would love Mr. X's job.
Now, if your boss won't buck up and fire the guy (or put him on the plan so that Mr. X can fix his problems), and the guy lands on your doorstep, then you begin with the performance plan. You can certainly start off with reference to his past behavior. In fact, you must start out that way.
You should sit down and go through all his expectations, what he needs to do to meet those, quantifiable plans to meet them and the clear understanding that he has a short time period to meet those or he'll be out on his ear. (You'll need the company president's support for that, so make sure he's willing to fire if Mr. X fails, because if not you'll have to come up with an alternative consequence.)
Good luck. You'll need it.
There is a director (Mr. X, we'll call him) who is a problematic performer. Among other things, he consistently arrives at the office 10-25 minutes late, and frequently much more than that. By consistent, I mean that his on-time percentage is 12% for the year to date - that means that he's arrived on time >10 days since the first working day of 2009. Traffic is not a problem - I live in the same general area as Mr. X, and I can get to work early or on time every single day under normal traffic conditions (it takes about 20 minutes).
Mr. X also frequently leaves early, particularly during the spring months, when he coaches his daughter's Little League team. On the occasions that he's stayed an hour late or worked through lunch, he's left early some other day that week and requested that he be given "comp" time for the extra hour or two that he worked (not recognizing that his late arrivals mean he's robbed the company of 1+ hours of time each week). Basically, whenever he works more than 40 hours a week, he wants additional compensation. This request is uniformly denied, but he can't seem to figure out that he's not entitled to special privileges, so he just keeps asking. I would note that there are many employees (exempt, of course) who routinely work 15 hour days, come into the office on Saturdays and Sundays and work through holidays. They don't get comp time either.
Because he's a director, in addition to a generous vacation allotment, he gets 80 hours a year of "management time" - which is intended to be used to cover portions of the work day when such an employee needs to be away from the office on personal business (taking a family member to the doctor, getting a car repaired, etc). This time is not intended to supplement vacation time. Of course, Mr. X has never applied this time to his late arrivals, and until he was threatened with termination earlier this year, he wouldn't apply it to the 30-60 mins of his frequent early departures. As of the end of June, Mr. X used up 75% of his management time allotment, because he was leaving early three times a week for 6 weeks.
Please note, I've not been tracking Mr. X's arrival time for my own "pleasure". After an incident this summer, when he "misreported" time - that is to say, lied - on his time sheet, I was asked to look at his entire on-time performance and PTO usage and provide a regular report to the President. That's how I happen to know the details of his badge in time and on-time performance - but all the other managers and directors know the guy show up late because there is a daily management call to catch up on operational and project issues that occurred overnight (we have offices in the middle and far east). The call is scheduled at a time that gives everyone who gets to work on time enough time to get a cup of coffee and go through email and open up the previous night's status reports, and is also comfortable for our overseas managers to participate (there are 8 and 14 hour time differences to deal with). Because Mr. X arrives either just as the call starts or is in progress, he has not had the chance to review any of the incoming emails and reports, so he is playing catch up, and because he's trying to read the emails while the call is on-going he's never on the same line, frequently asking everyone to backtrack, slow down or skip and come back. This slows down the progress of what is supposed to be a quick 15 minute meeting, frequently extending it by 10 minutes or more. Everyone else is prepared and is fully able to participate.
There are other issues with Mr. X's performance as well - he cannot make a decision for himself (which is my chief complaint, because he's a time sink - tying up personnel who need to do their own work). He constantly seeks confirmation of his point of view from other managers, and then he tries to create a wall of deniability in case his decision was not the correct one. He badgers mid-level staff for immediate responses to his inquiries but in turn ignores the requests of lower level staff, his peers and (in the case of my requests) his superiors. At one point, a client had started paperwork to terminate a contract because their interactions with Mr. X were such a problem. Work product that has gone to clients is often full of errors, both substantive and technical. Of course, Mr. X sees no deficiencies in his performance and has a greatly inflated view of his importance and the quality of his work product. But, at the end of the day, his work is just good enough to get by on, but only just.
So - why is this guy still here? I've never gotten a good answer on that. As I noted, he reports directly to the company president, who can't stand him - but for some reason refuses to terminate him. However, there is going to be an organizational restructuring in the very near term, and I fully expect that Mr. X will be transferred to my department - his function dovetails into areas I oversee. This will be interesting, since Mr. X has always seen me as a threat, and for some reason, doesn't understand that I am senior to him in the organization - in terms of authority, responsibility and impact. I let this slide, because - as I said, we're a small company and I've got to work with him on a daily basis, and it's not the culture of the company to pull rank.
These are my question:
1. When the transfer occurs, can I and should I do a full performance assessment with him (he would have already gotten an annual review for the prior year's work)?
2. If so, do I have to start from scratch, building up a file on his performance deficiencies only from the time he was transferred to my department, or can I use my prior observations and interactions.
3 . Regarding his abuse of time, since there is no requirement to badge out at the end of the day, can I require Mr. X to do so, in light of his habit of early departure? I should note that he parks away from the employee parking lot and does not use the employee entrance (he's the only one who does this), presumably so no one can see him enter and leave. He also refuses to shut down his computer and sign out of the company's IM program - so no one knows when he's out of the office. He is the only person who does this - when I was doing an investigation of the timesheet incident, I had to pull the server logs to see if I could ascertain departure times by when he logged off of the network.
In the past, when I've had to discuss the Mr. X problems with the company president, he (the president) has jokingly said that he'll make Mr. X report to me - and I've not-so-jokingly said that I'd fire the guy immediately.
What can I do?
Whew! I'm going to get on my soap box first and then answer your questions. It's my blog, so if I choose to do be all soap-boxish, I can.
Knock off the hour monitoring. Really. The 80 hours "management" time sounds awesome except when you realize that it's utterly ridiculous to require exempt employees to track when they take an hour off for a doctor's appointment. You should be managing your exempt employees on performance only. If they can get everything done in 25 hours a week, yippee for them. If they can do it while sitting on their living couch, wearing a bathrobe with Oprah playing in the background, then super-de-duper. Most people, of course, can't. (And if you have an exempt employee who can get it all done in 25 hours per week, dump some more work on that employee!)
You'll note that this guy has problems far beyond he's 20 minutes late to work every day. Duh. Because his problem isn't that he's late to work, his problem is that he's a terrible employee.
The problem with his late arrivals and early departures are that it affects the rest of the team. He's not prepared for the morning call. He can't be reached when he's coaching Little League. I know plenty of people who could coach Little League and have their work be completely unaffected.
And now to your specific problems.
First, I would sit down with the company president and say, "What is keeping you from firing Mr. X?"
If the answer is, "he's awfully annoying, but his work is stellar. He manages our biggest client who just loves him," well then you suck it up and understand that what you've got is a non-conventional worker. You work with Mr. X to come to an understanding of what he needs to soar and support him in that. Perhaps he gets a blackberry so he can check his e-mail in the morning while he's waiting for the school bus to pick up his daughters, which is why he's late every day.
If, more likely, the answer is, "he'll sue us!" Ask for what? Honestly. Discrimination against lazy people? He's has daughters in little league, so I'm guessing he might be over 40, which puts him in a protective class. However, even so, you can still fire someone in a protective class. You just can't fire them because they are in the protective class.
If you are afraid of lawsuits I see two options:
Option 1: Offer Mr. X a reasonable severance package. (3-6 months because he sounds fairly high level.) In exchange he signs a General Release, which means he agrees not to sue the company. You need to hire a labor & employment lawyer to help you with this. YOU CANNOT JUST WRITE UP A PIECE OF PAPER YOURSELF. Sorry, I should have used bold instead of all caps, but what is done is done.
If he doesn't sign, he's terminated anyway, but no cash. Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't usually the jackpot kind and attorneys won't take a case they don't think they can win. If your attorney feels like it's a low risk, it's a low risk.
Option 2: Get the company president to begin a termination procedure now. He sits down with Mr. X and says, "Your performance is not up to par." He then details the problems and presents Mr. X with a plan, no longer than 90 days.
This plan can include things like showing up for work on time and not leaving early, because those behaviors are contributing to problems with performance, not because I think you should be monitoring an exempt employee's hours.
Now, if your boss says he isn't firing Mr. X because "Mr. X has a family support" and "how could we be so cruel?" I'd point out that Mr. X is making a choice to behave in a way that could negatively affect his family and that there are many people out there who have the responsibility to support a family who would love Mr. X's job.
Now, if your boss won't buck up and fire the guy (or put him on the plan so that Mr. X can fix his problems), and the guy lands on your doorstep, then you begin with the performance plan. You can certainly start off with reference to his past behavior. In fact, you must start out that way.
You should sit down and go through all his expectations, what he needs to do to meet those, quantifiable plans to meet them and the clear understanding that he has a short time period to meet those or he'll be out on his ear. (You'll need the company president's support for that, so make sure he's willing to fire if Mr. X fails, because if not you'll have to come up with an alternative consequence.)
Good luck. You'll need it.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Some Advice on Quitting
Thinking of quitting or have an employee who is thinking of quitting? How you handle it can have a big impact on your future. Hop over to US New's On Careers and read about Employees should quit and how bosses should accept the news.
Monday, November 16, 2009
And what do you want me to do about this?
I am an HR manager. I have employees who come to me with complaints about their supervisors and these supervisors are also my confidants as managers on the management team I am on. Do I keep their complaints to myself or share with the manager that I think will fix the issue with no problem?
Employees whine. Managers whine. Evil HR Lady whines incessantly because she has a bad cold and cannot breathe properly. (No, it is not Swine Flu, or any flu. It is a cold, but if you want to feel sorry for me and make me dinner, please do. I really, really really dislike squash and mayonnaise. And don't tell me that the reason I don't like squash is because I've never tried YOUR recipe for squash delight, I won't like it. I will, politely accept it, thank you, and then try to force my family to eat it while declaring, "Squash is good for you!" Then we'll all have spaghetti.)
Anyway, a little digression. You need to figure out what your job is. I'll help. Your job is to help the business.
Think about that for a minute.
Your job is to help the business. You need to do what will help the business.
First, erase from your mind the idea that you are a therapist who is here to "help" people. You help people because it's good for the business. You have an EAP (I hope) to provide help with people's psyches. (Again, why? Because it's good for the business.) When someone comes to you with a complaint about their manager, feel free to say, "And what would you like me to do with that bit of information?"
Sometimes it is just venting. If it's not a real problem, fine, you're done. They've vented and feel better and you can move on to other things.
If it's a real problem, then you need to decide where the problem lies--with the complainer or the complainee. And then you need to figure out how it's best for the business to fix it. If that means going to the manager, go to the manager. If that means working the employee, work with the employee. If that means developing a company wide memo on how picking your nose and examining the finds during meetings is inappropriate, go for it.
You aren't required to keep confidences like a lawyer is. You do, however, want people to trust you so that you can help. That's why I find the "and what do you want me to do about this?" question so helpful. (Said sincerely, not snottily, of course.)
The solutions vary based on the problem. Some solutions are to coach the complainer on how to approach the complainee. Another time, it's best to pull the manager aside and tell him/her what is going on. Sometimes, you do nothing but listen. Sometimes you launch a formal investigation. Things that are illegal cannot be ignored. Things that are annoying can be.
If you truly think the manager will "fix the problem," let the complainer know, and then go ahead and tell. I don't like blindsiding people. (Now, if it's something that can be fixed without telling someone who the complainer is, you can do it that way.)
You need to be absolutely trustworthy. This is why you tell people what you are going to do with their information. You don't need to be everybody's friend. You also need to figure out what you can and cannot fix. Things that you cannot fix, you can leave alone.
Fixes do not always involve other people. Often the best fixes come from coaching the complainer to deal with their own problems.
Employees whine. Managers whine. Evil HR Lady whines incessantly because she has a bad cold and cannot breathe properly. (No, it is not Swine Flu, or any flu. It is a cold, but if you want to feel sorry for me and make me dinner, please do. I really, really really dislike squash and mayonnaise. And don't tell me that the reason I don't like squash is because I've never tried YOUR recipe for squash delight, I won't like it. I will, politely accept it, thank you, and then try to force my family to eat it while declaring, "Squash is good for you!" Then we'll all have spaghetti.)
Anyway, a little digression. You need to figure out what your job is. I'll help. Your job is to help the business.
Think about that for a minute.
Your job is to help the business. You need to do what will help the business.
First, erase from your mind the idea that you are a therapist who is here to "help" people. You help people because it's good for the business. You have an EAP (I hope) to provide help with people's psyches. (Again, why? Because it's good for the business.) When someone comes to you with a complaint about their manager, feel free to say, "And what would you like me to do with that bit of information?"
Sometimes it is just venting. If it's not a real problem, fine, you're done. They've vented and feel better and you can move on to other things.
If it's a real problem, then you need to decide where the problem lies--with the complainer or the complainee. And then you need to figure out how it's best for the business to fix it. If that means going to the manager, go to the manager. If that means working the employee, work with the employee. If that means developing a company wide memo on how picking your nose and examining the finds during meetings is inappropriate, go for it.
You aren't required to keep confidences like a lawyer is. You do, however, want people to trust you so that you can help. That's why I find the "and what do you want me to do about this?" question so helpful. (Said sincerely, not snottily, of course.)
The solutions vary based on the problem. Some solutions are to coach the complainer on how to approach the complainee. Another time, it's best to pull the manager aside and tell him/her what is going on. Sometimes, you do nothing but listen. Sometimes you launch a formal investigation. Things that are illegal cannot be ignored. Things that are annoying can be.
If you truly think the manager will "fix the problem," let the complainer know, and then go ahead and tell. I don't like blindsiding people. (Now, if it's something that can be fixed without telling someone who the complainer is, you can do it that way.)
You need to be absolutely trustworthy. This is why you tell people what you are going to do with their information. You don't need to be everybody's friend. You also need to figure out what you can and cannot fix. Things that you cannot fix, you can leave alone.
Fixes do not always involve other people. Often the best fixes come from coaching the complainer to deal with their own problems.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Evil HR Lady Gets a Little Mean
I got this e-mail this morning:
Could u plz help me to writing my career development goals.
That was all it said. I copied and pasted so I didn't accidentally correct grammar or spelling. (And yes, I'm guaranteed to make grammar mistakes since I'm picking on someone else right now. 'Tis Muphry's Law.)
First of all, the answer is no. Although, if I was, the first thing I would do is say "u" and "plz" are not real words. So, your first goal should be to write out full words. Secondly, I believe you are asking a question, so it should end in a question mark. I do suspect that English is not this person's first language (and heaven knows I know how difficult it is to learn a new language), so I'll give the "to writing" a pass.
The real problem here is that I can't write someone else's career development goals. I can maybe answer a specific question about how to write one, or a few things that should be included in a development plan, but I can't do it for you.
And this is a good thing. Because you need to develop your own plan. You need to really have two development plans: One for your job that deals with your relationship to the company and another for you alone that addresses your long term goals that don't necessarily involve your current employer.
I realize few people actually do that, but think of where you'd be if you did. It's always a huge advantage to know where you want to go. So, stop trying to pass your goal setting off to some random person on the internet and figure it out yourself.
And please, leave the "text speak" for your teenagers. We like proper grammar around here.
Could u plz help me to writing my career development goals.
That was all it said. I copied and pasted so I didn't accidentally correct grammar or spelling. (And yes, I'm guaranteed to make grammar mistakes since I'm picking on someone else right now. 'Tis Muphry's Law.)
First of all, the answer is no. Although, if I was, the first thing I would do is say "u" and "plz" are not real words. So, your first goal should be to write out full words. Secondly, I believe you are asking a question, so it should end in a question mark. I do suspect that English is not this person's first language (and heaven knows I know how difficult it is to learn a new language), so I'll give the "to writing" a pass.
The real problem here is that I can't write someone else's career development goals. I can maybe answer a specific question about how to write one, or a few things that should be included in a development plan, but I can't do it for you.
And this is a good thing. Because you need to develop your own plan. You need to really have two development plans: One for your job that deals with your relationship to the company and another for you alone that addresses your long term goals that don't necessarily involve your current employer.
I realize few people actually do that, but think of where you'd be if you did. It's always a huge advantage to know where you want to go. So, stop trying to pass your goal setting off to some random person on the internet and figure it out yourself.
And please, leave the "text speak" for your teenagers. We like proper grammar around here.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Asking For Severance
In January I will have been with the same company for 25 years. It is privately owned and has no HR department. About five years ago I spoke with the owner about where he thought the company was going and he assured me things were fine and to 'trust' him. I know he personally is financially secure and I have no problem with that, but the $600 a year profit sharing isn't going to get me very far as a retirement fund. I was given a very good raise a few years ago and make a good salary now. But, with the company running on a skeleton crew it is stressful. There is another person at the company that is capable of doing my job that I am sure is getting paid way less than I am and does not participate in our health insurance program. I sometimes get the feeling the owner resents paying my salary along with his half of my health insurance. To tell the truth the atmosphere is very stressful.
I know this seems really odd, but I was wondering if you thought approaching the owner about letting me go with some sort of a severance package would be really out of line? I have been looking the want ads, but with the economy and the unemployment so high I really have to question whether someone would hire me (someone with a good paying job) over an unemployed person? I think the company would save money by letting me go and I do appreciate the loyalty but would like to move on.
If you see any hope in this how would you approach the owner?
First let's address the asking for severance portion. Yes, I've seen this done. I've seen people ask for severance and be given it and I've seen people told no. It is usually successful when your manager really wants you to be gone. Then you're just offering to make it simple for him to get rid of you.
I'm not sure this is the case with you. I don't think you're a bad employee, just that you are overpaid. Let's assume, for a moment, that you are overpaid. One of your big concerns is that the miniscule profit sharing program isn't helping your retirement. Well, I've got bad news for you: If you are already over paid any new job you find isn't going to come with fabulous profit sharing. You'll end up with LESS money then before and still won't have anything for retirement.
Even though you've worked here for 25 years, you can't expect them to take care of your retirement. You need to change your lifestyle to save money, regardless of profit sharing dollars.
I also suspect you're not ready to hit the job market quite yet. Why? You mention "looking through the want ads." I'm pretty sure that's an indication that you don't realize how the job market has changed in the 25 years since you last job hunted. Want ads are generally a waste of time. Online job boards are better, but still not super. (Although, for full disclosure, I will say that I got my last job through Monster.com, so it does work, but it is one of many methods.) If you want a new job, you need to network.
This may be difficult because you've been in the same company for so long. It's time to start contacting former co-workers, current friends and family and let them know you are looking for a change. You need to figure out what companies you want to work for and then figure out how to get hired. Want ads are not the way to go.
The economy is terrible, so don't count on getting even a huge chunk of severance and then walking into a new job the next week. Even a large severance payout may not be enough to see you through to a new job, which may well pay less than your current one.
I realize I'm being as comforting as a bunch of frozen porcupines, but this is reality.
Unless the writing on the wall is that your boss wants you to leave, and that he's actively documenting reasons to fire you, I think you'd be foolish to ask for severance at this point. He may take you up on it, give you 6 weeks pay and send you out the door, and then what will you do?
If he has a history of giving out large severance payments, that's a different story, but I doubt he does. Most small business don't, and I doubt he's ever addressed something like this before.
Severance sounds fabulous. It's money for sitting on your behind. Yeah! Except that money eventually runs out. Plus, you'd have to pay for COBRA or get other health insurance, which will run you a lot more than what you're paying now.
Find a new job, then quit. Unless you're going to be fired. Then ask for severance. Just be direct. "Bob, I know you are unhappy with my performance. I'm willing to leave in exchange for 6 months severance. I'll sign a general release as well. Let me know what you think." And then you negotiate from there. If he wasn't planning to fire you, though, this tells him flat out that you're unhappy and may make your life worse.
Keep in mind that you're an at will employee and he's not required to give you any severance.
I know this seems really odd, but I was wondering if you thought approaching the owner about letting me go with some sort of a severance package would be really out of line? I have been looking the want ads, but with the economy and the unemployment so high I really have to question whether someone would hire me (someone with a good paying job) over an unemployed person? I think the company would save money by letting me go and I do appreciate the loyalty but would like to move on.
If you see any hope in this how would you approach the owner?
First let's address the asking for severance portion. Yes, I've seen this done. I've seen people ask for severance and be given it and I've seen people told no. It is usually successful when your manager really wants you to be gone. Then you're just offering to make it simple for him to get rid of you.
I'm not sure this is the case with you. I don't think you're a bad employee, just that you are overpaid. Let's assume, for a moment, that you are overpaid. One of your big concerns is that the miniscule profit sharing program isn't helping your retirement. Well, I've got bad news for you: If you are already over paid any new job you find isn't going to come with fabulous profit sharing. You'll end up with LESS money then before and still won't have anything for retirement.
Even though you've worked here for 25 years, you can't expect them to take care of your retirement. You need to change your lifestyle to save money, regardless of profit sharing dollars.
I also suspect you're not ready to hit the job market quite yet. Why? You mention "looking through the want ads." I'm pretty sure that's an indication that you don't realize how the job market has changed in the 25 years since you last job hunted. Want ads are generally a waste of time. Online job boards are better, but still not super. (Although, for full disclosure, I will say that I got my last job through Monster.com, so it does work, but it is one of many methods.) If you want a new job, you need to network.
This may be difficult because you've been in the same company for so long. It's time to start contacting former co-workers, current friends and family and let them know you are looking for a change. You need to figure out what companies you want to work for and then figure out how to get hired. Want ads are not the way to go.
The economy is terrible, so don't count on getting even a huge chunk of severance and then walking into a new job the next week. Even a large severance payout may not be enough to see you through to a new job, which may well pay less than your current one.
I realize I'm being as comforting as a bunch of frozen porcupines, but this is reality.
Unless the writing on the wall is that your boss wants you to leave, and that he's actively documenting reasons to fire you, I think you'd be foolish to ask for severance at this point. He may take you up on it, give you 6 weeks pay and send you out the door, and then what will you do?
If he has a history of giving out large severance payments, that's a different story, but I doubt he does. Most small business don't, and I doubt he's ever addressed something like this before.
Severance sounds fabulous. It's money for sitting on your behind. Yeah! Except that money eventually runs out. Plus, you'd have to pay for COBRA or get other health insurance, which will run you a lot more than what you're paying now.
Find a new job, then quit. Unless you're going to be fired. Then ask for severance. Just be direct. "Bob, I know you are unhappy with my performance. I'm willing to leave in exchange for 6 months severance. I'll sign a general release as well. Let me know what you think." And then you negotiate from there. If he wasn't planning to fire you, though, this tells him flat out that you're unhappy and may make your life worse.
Keep in mind that you're an at will employee and he's not required to give you any severance.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Too Much Information?
Is it bad to write about my difficulties finding a job in my blog,if I'm going to include the URL in Resume?
This is an excellent question. I think that if you are specifically going to include a blog URL on your resume you need to consider that blog part of your resume.
For the record, my blog is on my resume at the moment, but I'm not actively looking for a new job. I may change my mind when I am looking for a new job. Of course, any recruiter would be remiss if they didn't google my name, and if you do so, I'm usually in the top 3 hits for "Suzanne Lucas." (There is a Suzanne Lucas who does Rolfing, which sounds like Ralphing, which is a term we used to use for an unpleasant illness related event. I'm not her.)
So, included on the resume or not, my blog is part of my resume. Most likely, so is yours. I know most people think they can be anonymous on the internet. But you must assume that you are not. You must be willing to stand behind everything you write--even if it's in a chat room, Facebook, or a product review at Amazon. You represent YOU.
So, do you write about your troubles job hunting? In my never to be humble opinion (when interviewers ask me what my flaw is, I can say "pride" and point to this blog as evidence), it all depends on how you do it. If you talk about general struggles related to a bad economy, fine. If you start talking about stupid &*$&! who interviewed you and didn't realize you were the best &*$(!$#(( person for the job, then you're in big trouble.
There is a middle ground, of course. Finding it is difficult. Keep in mind that, while unlikely, any potential employer may be reading your blog. If you write, "I have a big interview with AcmeCorp tomorrow," your potential manager's ears are going to perk right up.
Before you write, think "Would I say this in a job interview?" If the answer is no, then leave it off the blog. If the answer is yes, go ahead. One other thing to keep in mind is that if you detail your troubles and you write about each one of your 15 job interviews with no offers you might lower your chances of success. People can't help but think, "Gee, 15 other companies didn't hire him. Must be something wrong."
This is an excellent question. I think that if you are specifically going to include a blog URL on your resume you need to consider that blog part of your resume.
For the record, my blog is on my resume at the moment, but I'm not actively looking for a new job. I may change my mind when I am looking for a new job. Of course, any recruiter would be remiss if they didn't google my name, and if you do so, I'm usually in the top 3 hits for "Suzanne Lucas." (There is a Suzanne Lucas who does Rolfing, which sounds like Ralphing, which is a term we used to use for an unpleasant illness related event. I'm not her.)
So, included on the resume or not, my blog is part of my resume. Most likely, so is yours. I know most people think they can be anonymous on the internet. But you must assume that you are not. You must be willing to stand behind everything you write--even if it's in a chat room, Facebook, or a product review at Amazon. You represent YOU.
So, do you write about your troubles job hunting? In my never to be humble opinion (when interviewers ask me what my flaw is, I can say "pride" and point to this blog as evidence), it all depends on how you do it. If you talk about general struggles related to a bad economy, fine. If you start talking about stupid &*$&! who interviewed you and didn't realize you were the best &*$(!$#(( person for the job, then you're in big trouble.
There is a middle ground, of course. Finding it is difficult. Keep in mind that, while unlikely, any potential employer may be reading your blog. If you write, "I have a big interview with AcmeCorp tomorrow," your potential manager's ears are going to perk right up.
Before you write, think "Would I say this in a job interview?" If the answer is no, then leave it off the blog. If the answer is yes, go ahead. One other thing to keep in mind is that if you detail your troubles and you write about each one of your 15 job interviews with no offers you might lower your chances of success. People can't help but think, "Gee, 15 other companies didn't hire him. Must be something wrong."
Friday, October 30, 2009
So, How's That Working For You?
After reading everyone's horror stories about crazy punishments for getting sick, I'm really interested in hearing from the people who create and/or enforce these rules. I know you must be out there.
Does it really decrease absenteeism? Does your turnover increase? What is the reasoning behind it? Was it HR's idea, or the CEOs or Finance? Have you calculated the costs associated with this policy?
I'm really interested. Honest. I'm pretty sure the people who comment aren't all just making up stories, so there must be HR out there who enforces these things. Tell me how it's going.
Does it really decrease absenteeism? Does your turnover increase? What is the reasoning behind it? Was it HR's idea, or the CEOs or Finance? Have you calculated the costs associated with this policy?
I'm really interested. Honest. I'm pretty sure the people who comment aren't all just making up stories, so there must be HR out there who enforces these things. Tell me how it's going.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Exempt Day Swapping
What impact does pay periods have on exempt employees who wish to make up time? If an employee takes a couple of hours off but desires to make up the time, why does it have to done in the same pay period?
To put us in context, the majority of the staff are exempt, we currently get paid on the 5th and 20th of each month, have vacation and sick buckets and work 9/80 with every other Friday off.
I ask this because a couple of employees worked on what would have been 'Off Friday on 10/9'. One of the employees had a scheduled sick day [medical apt] for the following Friday which would have been 'On Friday on 10/16'.
He asked could he cover his medical apt with his 'Off Friday time worked' rather count it against his sick time. I allowed it. However the owner raised a fuss because the medical apt time off was not in the same pay period as the time worked, but she allowed 'this time'.
Pay periods have no impact on when exempt people take time off, or switch schedules, or what have you. Legally. An exempt person gets paid the same every paycheck and that is that.
Now, a non-exempt person is a different story, because if they work more than 40 hours in a given week, they have to receive overtime pay, even if the reason they worked was to make up for time they took off in a previous week.
But, this is an exempt question. What you did is perfectly reasonable. Your employee knew he was going to be gone on a specific day, so he asked to swap his days off, so as to not have to use PTO. Super! No problem. It's no problem because it doesn't matter, in terms of pay, when an exempt employee works or doesn't work.
The owner "allowed" this, but said not to do it again. I'm tempted to ask her what purpose this would serve. I'll tell you. It would serve to further alienate employees! Yeah! Just what you want.
However, the owner certainly is within her rights to not allow this. Companies can set the rules for time off. And even though you have to pay exempt employees, you can dictate the rules and discipline if they break them. So, yes, she could say, "No, sorry. You can't swap days." Is this dumb? Yes. But, sometimes owners/managers think that they are doing favors for their employees by giving them jobs. They feel like they are handing out Halloween candy and you better darn well say thank you, even if they hand out those nasty peanut-butter things in the orange and black wrappers. And if you don't they yell at you for your lack of manners. They forget that the reason you are working for them is that it benefits the owner/manager/company. (If it doesn't, you should be fired.)
So, the pay periods thing is her rule. Fine. You live with it. But it's not (as far as I know, not being a lawyer or anything like that) illegal to do so.
To put us in context, the majority of the staff are exempt, we currently get paid on the 5th and 20th of each month, have vacation and sick buckets and work 9/80 with every other Friday off.
I ask this because a couple of employees worked on what would have been 'Off Friday on 10/9'. One of the employees had a scheduled sick day [medical apt] for the following Friday which would have been 'On Friday on 10/16'.
He asked could he cover his medical apt with his 'Off Friday time worked' rather count it against his sick time. I allowed it. However the owner raised a fuss because the medical apt time off was not in the same pay period as the time worked, but she allowed 'this time'.
Pay periods have no impact on when exempt people take time off, or switch schedules, or what have you. Legally. An exempt person gets paid the same every paycheck and that is that.
Now, a non-exempt person is a different story, because if they work more than 40 hours in a given week, they have to receive overtime pay, even if the reason they worked was to make up for time they took off in a previous week.
But, this is an exempt question. What you did is perfectly reasonable. Your employee knew he was going to be gone on a specific day, so he asked to swap his days off, so as to not have to use PTO. Super! No problem. It's no problem because it doesn't matter, in terms of pay, when an exempt employee works or doesn't work.
The owner "allowed" this, but said not to do it again. I'm tempted to ask her what purpose this would serve. I'll tell you. It would serve to further alienate employees! Yeah! Just what you want.
However, the owner certainly is within her rights to not allow this. Companies can set the rules for time off. And even though you have to pay exempt employees, you can dictate the rules and discipline if they break them. So, yes, she could say, "No, sorry. You can't swap days." Is this dumb? Yes. But, sometimes owners/managers think that they are doing favors for their employees by giving them jobs. They feel like they are handing out Halloween candy and you better darn well say thank you, even if they hand out those nasty peanut-butter things in the orange and black wrappers. And if you don't they yell at you for your lack of manners. They forget that the reason you are working for them is that it benefits the owner/manager/company. (If it doesn't, you should be fired.)
So, the pay periods thing is her rule. Fine. You live with it. But it's not (as far as I know, not being a lawyer or anything like that) illegal to do so.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Job You Can't Take
Should I accept an interview for a position in a location to which I would never (could never) move? Or should I state it in the cover letter or phone interview and risk being passed over by someone willing to relocate? The position is primarily project management with few, if any, direct reports (other than coordinating tasks with other groups). My intention is to request to telecommute from several states away (as the company website cites flex-time and telecommuting as benefits).
I realize that the career benefits sections of corporate websites typically are lip service, but should I try anyway? Please note that I work in an incestuous industry and would worry about being branded later in my career as one who “wasted the company’s time and money” with potentially unethical intentions.
Yeah, some things are lip service. Some companies proclaim loudly about all the benefits you'll get, only they don't specify that the "you" means everyone who makes $300,000 or more.
But, some companies are honest. When you are applying, it's best to assume they are being honest. When you are evaluating an offer, it's best to verify and get everything in writing.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with applying for a job that you would only accept if you could telecommute. But, this is something that you should mention in your cover letter, or at the very latest at the phone screen.
Frequently, I tell people to wait until the negotiation phase to ask for special things. That works best for things like, "I've already scheduled a vacation next month" and "I will need to leave work by 4:00 on Thursdays, but can work normally every other day" not, "I want to live across the country."
This is a situation where even if the company, as a whole, supports telecommuting, not all bosses do. The hiring manager may be someone who just can't handle a telecommuter. Or the job description doesn't accurately portray the job (not unusual!) and you don't realize that it would be critical to be on site.
Since there are far more qualified candidates then there are jobs, I would bet that this would get you eliminated from consideration. But this, actually, is okay. Because you don't want the job if you have to relocate.
I think telecommuting is fantastic. I've done it. I've had awesome, family friendly bosses in a family friendly company. But, in my experience, it works best when there is some regular face time as well. I'd be very hesitant to consider an external hire for 100% telecommuting. I think getting to know people is much easier in a face-to-face situation, and would like any new employee to be able to get to know their co-workers before going 100% off site.
But, others may disagree. Apply, but be honest. I can tell you right now that if you wait until they fly you out there to interview before you say, "I won't relocate," you are going to be on the bad list.
And keep in mind, if you are super fabulous (and you are!) they just may go for it.
I realize that the career benefits sections of corporate websites typically are lip service, but should I try anyway? Please note that I work in an incestuous industry and would worry about being branded later in my career as one who “wasted the company’s time and money” with potentially unethical intentions.
Yeah, some things are lip service. Some companies proclaim loudly about all the benefits you'll get, only they don't specify that the "you" means everyone who makes $300,000 or more.
But, some companies are honest. When you are applying, it's best to assume they are being honest. When you are evaluating an offer, it's best to verify and get everything in writing.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with applying for a job that you would only accept if you could telecommute. But, this is something that you should mention in your cover letter, or at the very latest at the phone screen.
Frequently, I tell people to wait until the negotiation phase to ask for special things. That works best for things like, "I've already scheduled a vacation next month" and "I will need to leave work by 4:00 on Thursdays, but can work normally every other day" not, "I want to live across the country."
This is a situation where even if the company, as a whole, supports telecommuting, not all bosses do. The hiring manager may be someone who just can't handle a telecommuter. Or the job description doesn't accurately portray the job (not unusual!) and you don't realize that it would be critical to be on site.
Since there are far more qualified candidates then there are jobs, I would bet that this would get you eliminated from consideration. But this, actually, is okay. Because you don't want the job if you have to relocate.
I think telecommuting is fantastic. I've done it. I've had awesome, family friendly bosses in a family friendly company. But, in my experience, it works best when there is some regular face time as well. I'd be very hesitant to consider an external hire for 100% telecommuting. I think getting to know people is much easier in a face-to-face situation, and would like any new employee to be able to get to know their co-workers before going 100% off site.
But, others may disagree. Apply, but be honest. I can tell you right now that if you wait until they fly you out there to interview before you say, "I won't relocate," you are going to be on the bad list.
And keep in mind, if you are super fabulous (and you are!) they just may go for it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
MD activity at work
Is an employer allowed to hand you a thermometer and tell you to take your temperature at work? Can they send you home if you have a temperature?
And now it's time for the big disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to be a lawyer. I am not an expert on law. I don't pretend to be one. This is not legal advice.
I see this as one of those you can't win situation. If you allow people who are sick to work then their co-workers will be writing me saying, "Can't the company require sick people to stay at home? I don't want to get infected?"
There are some things to think about. 1. If they send home an exempt employee they must pay her anyway. 2. Hourly employees (not under contract, this does not apply to unions) are only paid for the hours they work. Companies are not required to provide a certain number of hours per week. (Think back to your days working fast food. If it was a slow night, they sent you home.)
I honestly don't know if it's legal to require someone to have their temperature taken in the normal course of a work day. You can require drug tests and physicals as conditions of employment. (And if I recall, my last work physical involved a temperature check, although why I can't imagine. Having a fever at THAT MOMENT hardly means you always have one.)
I think the real question is should this be a policy? Well, honestly, I want sick people to stay home. I want people to be adults and be able to call up their own bosses and say, "I'm sick so I'm staying home," and have that be the truth and I want the boss to believe the person and I would really like it if there were an adequate number of sick days.
I think it's a weird thing to do, but I can totally see the business reason: Sick people infect other people, which makes more people sick, which hurts the business. Unfortunately, with most diseases you start being contagious before symptoms show, so you can't stop that. However, it makes sense to ban sick people from the office.
Like I said, I'd rather see this occur by having everyone take their own temperatures at home. I hate the requirement to go see a doctor because for most illnesses the doctor is either going to say, "you're sick. Drink fluids. Rest. You'll get better on your own" or he'll prescribe an unnecessary antibiotic. I understand why though, because all HR people can tell you about lying liars who we've dealt with.
The problem comes in when you have an hourly workforce who don't get paid if they don't work. People work because they need the money. No one wants to work when sick. We do it out of obligation (I must get this project done) and need (I must pay the mortgage). If the company is offering paid sick days, doesn't require you to come in for the temperature taking (that is, they believe you if you call in sick), and doesn't punish you for taking time off (lower rating, bonus, etc), then sure. I think it's a bit creepy and weird, but okay.
If it's a job that involves food handling or dealing with already sick people, then I think it's even more important to keep sick people home. But like I said, I think it's creepy. Maybe a lawyer can chime in if it's legal to take the actual temperature.
And now it's time for the big disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to be a lawyer. I am not an expert on law. I don't pretend to be one. This is not legal advice.
I see this as one of those you can't win situation. If you allow people who are sick to work then their co-workers will be writing me saying, "Can't the company require sick people to stay at home? I don't want to get infected?"
There are some things to think about. 1. If they send home an exempt employee they must pay her anyway. 2. Hourly employees (not under contract, this does not apply to unions) are only paid for the hours they work. Companies are not required to provide a certain number of hours per week. (Think back to your days working fast food. If it was a slow night, they sent you home.)
I honestly don't know if it's legal to require someone to have their temperature taken in the normal course of a work day. You can require drug tests and physicals as conditions of employment. (And if I recall, my last work physical involved a temperature check, although why I can't imagine. Having a fever at THAT MOMENT hardly means you always have one.)
I think the real question is should this be a policy? Well, honestly, I want sick people to stay home. I want people to be adults and be able to call up their own bosses and say, "I'm sick so I'm staying home," and have that be the truth and I want the boss to believe the person and I would really like it if there were an adequate number of sick days.
I think it's a weird thing to do, but I can totally see the business reason: Sick people infect other people, which makes more people sick, which hurts the business. Unfortunately, with most diseases you start being contagious before symptoms show, so you can't stop that. However, it makes sense to ban sick people from the office.
Like I said, I'd rather see this occur by having everyone take their own temperatures at home. I hate the requirement to go see a doctor because for most illnesses the doctor is either going to say, "you're sick. Drink fluids. Rest. You'll get better on your own" or he'll prescribe an unnecessary antibiotic. I understand why though, because all HR people can tell you about lying liars who we've dealt with.
The problem comes in when you have an hourly workforce who don't get paid if they don't work. People work because they need the money. No one wants to work when sick. We do it out of obligation (I must get this project done) and need (I must pay the mortgage). If the company is offering paid sick days, doesn't require you to come in for the temperature taking (that is, they believe you if you call in sick), and doesn't punish you for taking time off (lower rating, bonus, etc), then sure. I think it's a bit creepy and weird, but okay.
If it's a job that involves food handling or dealing with already sick people, then I think it's even more important to keep sick people home. But like I said, I think it's creepy. Maybe a lawyer can chime in if it's legal to take the actual temperature.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Hazards of Being Dependable
I am a production manager at a trade org/not for profit.
I love my boss, who is a great guy, but not the best manager. As long as things get done, he’s satisfied, but procedures and work flows have suffered.
About 80% of all projects cross my desk. I can get anything done and I pride myself on being very capable. The problem is no one sees me as a manager or leader, just another worker bee.
My boss has often praised me and told me he’d fight for me. But it’s been 2 years since my last raise and I’m getting very unhappy about my role and my compensation.
The raise (or the lack thereof) is a red herring. Yes, it's a problem (and here is where lots of people jump in to say, I don't even have a job, let alone a raise!), but it's not THE problem.
There may be many problems, so I'll suggest a few.
PROBLEM A: You aren't good management material. Ouch, I know. But consider the possibility. Some people are fabulous individual contributors, but lousy managers. Your boss may see that you can and do get anything done that he asks of you, but also sees that you lack the skills to manage others.
Many people are surprised that being good at a job doesn't automatically make you good at being the boss. They are entirely different skill sets. If you look at senior leadership outside hires, they sometimes come from different industries altogether. This is because the skills needed to manage aren't those needed to make the product.
SOLUTION A: Sit down with your boss and express your desire to move into a management role. Explain that you feel you may be lacking a few skills and want to develop those. Ask for advice, mentoring, training, etc. Just because you don't have good management skills now, doesn't mean you can't gain them.
PROBLEM B: There's nowhere to go from here. You didn't say your non-profit was small, but in my mind I always think small when I hear non-profit. (And yes, I know there are some large non-profits, but humor me.) You may be ready to move into a new role, but there isn't one for you. Promoting you would require a huge reorganization that wouldn't benefit the organization--just you.
SOLUTION B: Once upon a time I worked for a Credit Union that had a grand total of 142 employees. There was no one between me and the head of HR. If she left, they would have had to hire from the outside because I was in no way ready for such leadership. But, there was no place to promote me either. So, I looked for another job and found one and left.
I needed more experience before I could fill the position "above" me. You may as well. Leaving is one option. Another option is moving sideways. Gain experience in a different group, preferably one that has room for growth.
PROBLEM C: You are too good at your job. This, unfortunately, happens. Managers can't figure out how they could possibly function without their star employees and hold them back. They aren't trying to undermine their careers; they are trying to make their own careers successful.
SOLUTION C: Leave. Or find another department with a position available and post for that. Please note that if this is the problem your manager may still have the ability to prevent your promotion.
If you don't want to leave (or can't find a better job), the harder thing to do is work with your manager on this. This can have fantastic results, by the way. You need to be clear that you are looking for management opportunities, but you don't want to leave him in the lurch. Present a plan for how you will fill the position you want and how you will train your replacement.
This can be scary, though, because we want our managers to think, "I could never get along without Sally." (Unless of course, your name is Jane and Sally is a huge brown-noser.) The fear is that if you demonstrate that he could get along without you, you might find yourself out of a job. This probably won't happen, though.
Again, when you start this conversation you need to emphasize that you want to stay with the company, you just want to be in Role X, and you need his help to get there, and you will help him replace you. This is a HUGE benefit to the company. Make sure you show it that way.
PROBLEM D: Your manager is a jerk who will never pay you more money, will never allow you to get promoted and will continue to pile work on you no matter what.
SOLUTION D: Suck it up or leave. Wait it out until he leaves and maybe you'll get his job, but probably not because if you've been there 10 years without a promotion, his management will assume there's a problem with you.
I love my boss, who is a great guy, but not the best manager. As long as things get done, he’s satisfied, but procedures and work flows have suffered.
About 80% of all projects cross my desk. I can get anything done and I pride myself on being very capable. The problem is no one sees me as a manager or leader, just another worker bee.
My boss has often praised me and told me he’d fight for me. But it’s been 2 years since my last raise and I’m getting very unhappy about my role and my compensation.
The raise (or the lack thereof) is a red herring. Yes, it's a problem (and here is where lots of people jump in to say, I don't even have a job, let alone a raise!), but it's not THE problem.
There may be many problems, so I'll suggest a few.
PROBLEM A: You aren't good management material. Ouch, I know. But consider the possibility. Some people are fabulous individual contributors, but lousy managers. Your boss may see that you can and do get anything done that he asks of you, but also sees that you lack the skills to manage others.
Many people are surprised that being good at a job doesn't automatically make you good at being the boss. They are entirely different skill sets. If you look at senior leadership outside hires, they sometimes come from different industries altogether. This is because the skills needed to manage aren't those needed to make the product.
SOLUTION A: Sit down with your boss and express your desire to move into a management role. Explain that you feel you may be lacking a few skills and want to develop those. Ask for advice, mentoring, training, etc. Just because you don't have good management skills now, doesn't mean you can't gain them.
PROBLEM B: There's nowhere to go from here. You didn't say your non-profit was small, but in my mind I always think small when I hear non-profit. (And yes, I know there are some large non-profits, but humor me.) You may be ready to move into a new role, but there isn't one for you. Promoting you would require a huge reorganization that wouldn't benefit the organization--just you.
SOLUTION B: Once upon a time I worked for a Credit Union that had a grand total of 142 employees. There was no one between me and the head of HR. If she left, they would have had to hire from the outside because I was in no way ready for such leadership. But, there was no place to promote me either. So, I looked for another job and found one and left.
I needed more experience before I could fill the position "above" me. You may as well. Leaving is one option. Another option is moving sideways. Gain experience in a different group, preferably one that has room for growth.
PROBLEM C: You are too good at your job. This, unfortunately, happens. Managers can't figure out how they could possibly function without their star employees and hold them back. They aren't trying to undermine their careers; they are trying to make their own careers successful.
SOLUTION C: Leave. Or find another department with a position available and post for that. Please note that if this is the problem your manager may still have the ability to prevent your promotion.
If you don't want to leave (or can't find a better job), the harder thing to do is work with your manager on this. This can have fantastic results, by the way. You need to be clear that you are looking for management opportunities, but you don't want to leave him in the lurch. Present a plan for how you will fill the position you want and how you will train your replacement.
This can be scary, though, because we want our managers to think, "I could never get along without Sally." (Unless of course, your name is Jane and Sally is a huge brown-noser.) The fear is that if you demonstrate that he could get along without you, you might find yourself out of a job. This probably won't happen, though.
Again, when you start this conversation you need to emphasize that you want to stay with the company, you just want to be in Role X, and you need his help to get there, and you will help him replace you. This is a HUGE benefit to the company. Make sure you show it that way.
PROBLEM D: Your manager is a jerk who will never pay you more money, will never allow you to get promoted and will continue to pile work on you no matter what.
SOLUTION D: Suck it up or leave. Wait it out until he leaves and maybe you'll get his job, but probably not because if you've been there 10 years without a promotion, his management will assume there's a problem with you.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Co-worker evaluations
I work for a large company. Every year we are asked to fill out evaluation forms, supposedly anonymously, about our coworkers. Our Manager picks many of the people who fill out the forms about us; although most of the Managers let the staff pick their own people to fill in their forms. We are cautioned not to pick friends, but to pick people who will be honestly critical. The end of the form has areas for narrative writing about areas of strength and weaknesses. Since we basically know which people are filling out the forms on us, we usually can figure out exactly who wrote what about us.
I find this to cause a great amount of stress, divisiveness and unhappiness amongst the coworkers. Personally, I never write negative things on these forms for my coworkers even if I truly have do have criticism for them or can barely stand to be in the same room with them. This is because reviews can affect their raises etc. and because I want to keep the peace. I think that even the most constructive criticism, in this format, can be seen as betrayal.
Besides, is it my job to deliver criticism? Shouldn’t my Manager be in touch enough with the team to know the problems or weaknesses and strengths of the team members and deal with it? Honestly, I feel like little good ever comes of these things. I am particularly curious about what will show up on mine this year as there are some "certifiable" people who have been asked to do mine as well as a few people who are extremely critical but I've had almost no contact with the entire year due to the nature of our work.
Can you explain why companies do this?
You know, after I decided to tackle this question, I went upstairs and found my husband filling out just such a form for a co-worker. It's not uncommon. 360 degree feedback can be an excellent thing. Frequently bosses don't know everything and co-workers and clients can offer real insight.
However, I have yet to find the person who loves to receive criticism and having co-workers delivering it directly causes the stress and anxiety you talk about.
But wait, my astute readers note, it's all anonymous because they don't put the names of the actual person on the notes! Yeah, just like your third grade teacher couldn't identify which kid wrote the dirty word on the chalkboard, just by looking at handwriting. You don't have to be psychic to figure out which of the 4 people selected made the comment.
Your company means well (honest!). They are trying to get you accurate feedback so that you can improve. They recognize that managers don't know everything (Positive and negative) that their employees do. This is all good.
However, I think that as a general employee review process, that directly impacts raises, bonuses, etc., that the feedback should be collected and given to the manager. The manager then writes the review and uses that information to help him do so, not as a substitute for doing it himself.
You've noted that you're not being honest in your reviews because of the political fall out. Others aren't either. Some, like you, are nice. Others see it as an opportunity to undermine their competitors. (And yes, many people treat co-workers as competitors.) By filling out the information and giving it to the manager, the manager has more information (good), more honest information (because it's not going directly to the person, although the underminers are still likely to be jerks, but the boss should know and can verify if things seem off), and can write a better review.
As for you, keep being nice, but feel free to mention real problems if you can also do so with a suggested solution. If you don't feel comfortable saying something on the form, tell the person's boss directly about the problem. It's his job to deal with it.
I find this to cause a great amount of stress, divisiveness and unhappiness amongst the coworkers. Personally, I never write negative things on these forms for my coworkers even if I truly have do have criticism for them or can barely stand to be in the same room with them. This is because reviews can affect their raises etc. and because I want to keep the peace. I think that even the most constructive criticism, in this format, can be seen as betrayal.
Besides, is it my job to deliver criticism? Shouldn’t my Manager be in touch enough with the team to know the problems or weaknesses and strengths of the team members and deal with it? Honestly, I feel like little good ever comes of these things. I am particularly curious about what will show up on mine this year as there are some "certifiable" people who have been asked to do mine as well as a few people who are extremely critical but I've had almost no contact with the entire year due to the nature of our work.
Can you explain why companies do this?
You know, after I decided to tackle this question, I went upstairs and found my husband filling out just such a form for a co-worker. It's not uncommon. 360 degree feedback can be an excellent thing. Frequently bosses don't know everything and co-workers and clients can offer real insight.
However, I have yet to find the person who loves to receive criticism and having co-workers delivering it directly causes the stress and anxiety you talk about.
But wait, my astute readers note, it's all anonymous because they don't put the names of the actual person on the notes! Yeah, just like your third grade teacher couldn't identify which kid wrote the dirty word on the chalkboard, just by looking at handwriting. You don't have to be psychic to figure out which of the 4 people selected made the comment.
Your company means well (honest!). They are trying to get you accurate feedback so that you can improve. They recognize that managers don't know everything (Positive and negative) that their employees do. This is all good.
However, I think that as a general employee review process, that directly impacts raises, bonuses, etc., that the feedback should be collected and given to the manager. The manager then writes the review and uses that information to help him do so, not as a substitute for doing it himself.
You've noted that you're not being honest in your reviews because of the political fall out. Others aren't either. Some, like you, are nice. Others see it as an opportunity to undermine their competitors. (And yes, many people treat co-workers as competitors.) By filling out the information and giving it to the manager, the manager has more information (good), more honest information (because it's not going directly to the person, although the underminers are still likely to be jerks, but the boss should know and can verify if things seem off), and can write a better review.
As for you, keep being nice, but feel free to mention real problems if you can also do so with a suggested solution. If you don't feel comfortable saying something on the form, tell the person's boss directly about the problem. It's his job to deal with it.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Random Travel Post
We spent 3 days in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. You didn't even know it was a Grand Duchy, did you? Well, you do now. There were castles, of course, and cool tunnels under Luxembourg City, but this post is about sinful vending machines.
This is a picture of one of the vending machines in our hotel. See if you can spot the "interesting items" it offers. Oh, and in case you were worried about corrupting minors, there was a sign on the top that said you had to be 16 to purchase things other than the candy.
If you get all three bad items correctly, then you win a prize! Of course, the prize is the knowledge that you purposely seek out wickedness. Sinner.
Did you spot them? I'll help. We have, right next to the "kinder" treats (really), a dirty magazine, c0ndoms, and cigarettes! Awesome, and what a great cover story. "Honey, I meant to get the M&Ms, but I hit the wrong number and got these cigarettes instead! Might as well smoke 'em."
So, what if one of these isn't the vice of your choice? (The M&Ms, I mean. Not everyone likes chocolate, but cigarettes--those meet everyone's desires.) Never fear, next to vending machine number 1 was the beer vending machine!
If you never have good luck with vending machines, you can still have convenient shopping. In Northern Luxembourg, we ran into a store that definitely would be helpful around Christmas time. It specialized in two types of products:
That's right! Alcohol and toys. Hard liquor and puzzles. It had three or four big window displays and everyone one of them showcased both children's items and alcohol. Some of the alcohol was in delightful animal shaped bottles, in case you were torn between indulging your alcoholism and buying your child a present. Go ahead and buy the scotch in the glass duck and then when you've finished, the duck can be a present for Junior.
This is a picture of one of the vending machines in our hotel. See if you can spot the "interesting items" it offers. Oh, and in case you were worried about corrupting minors, there was a sign on the top that said you had to be 16 to purchase things other than the candy.
If you get all three bad items correctly, then you win a prize! Of course, the prize is the knowledge that you purposely seek out wickedness. Sinner.
Did you spot them? I'll help. We have, right next to the "kinder" treats (really), a dirty magazine, c0ndoms, and cigarettes! Awesome, and what a great cover story. "Honey, I meant to get the M&Ms, but I hit the wrong number and got these cigarettes instead! Might as well smoke 'em."
So, what if one of these isn't the vice of your choice? (The M&Ms, I mean. Not everyone likes chocolate, but cigarettes--those meet everyone's desires.) Never fear, next to vending machine number 1 was the beer vending machine!
If you never have good luck with vending machines, you can still have convenient shopping. In Northern Luxembourg, we ran into a store that definitely would be helpful around Christmas time. It specialized in two types of products:
That's right! Alcohol and toys. Hard liquor and puzzles. It had three or four big window displays and everyone one of them showcased both children's items and alcohol. Some of the alcohol was in delightful animal shaped bottles, in case you were torn between indulging your alcoholism and buying your child a present. Go ahead and buy the scotch in the glass duck and then when you've finished, the duck can be a present for Junior.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Feedback, Feedback, Feedback
I work for a small non-profit organization and we have no HR. Because I have some seniority, I've been assigned as a supervisor to one of our part-time workers, who also happens to be a friend of mine from high school. She is in communications and often makes mistakes on print and online publications. Even before I was her supervisor, I'd sat down with her and told her she needed to be more careful. That did not prove effective, as a few days later, she made another mistake and I had to e-mail her to remind her about the review process we established so we can avoid publication errors. Others in the communications team have also mentioned her making mistakes.
Since I became her supervisor, I removed her from online publishing, but now she is doing grant proposals and documents for the government, and is still making mistakes! I am usually the first one called into the boss' office, because she cuts and pastes from drafts of my work(cut-and-paste is a common practice here), and doesn't bother to check--or ask me--if the document is the final version, and therefore had been reviewed for errors.
She is also absent-minded when it comes to other things. For example, I requested that she make copies of her timesheet so I have records of her projects in case the boss asks me. She has so far done this only once. Also, another co-worker has complained that when she asks her to research something, she would agree, and then not do it.
I have no idea how to tell her that she really needs to be more focused and detail-oriented, especially since (a) I had done so in the past and it hadn't worked, (b) she has a tendency to say "Okay," and then no to do what we asked her to do, and (c) apparently she's upset that I was assigned as her supervisor. Do you have any advice for me?
First, I hope that you were not made a supervisor strictly because you have seniority. That's about the worst reason to promote someone. (Although, admittedly, it's a very popular reason for promotion. Longevity does not=good supervisor material.) Because you are not sticking your head in the sand with this employee, it seems like you earned this role by more than not quitting.
Your first issue is that she is an old friend who is ticked off that you are her boss. Her failures could just be passive aggressive behavior--and may even be subconscious. This is a frustrating situation. Now, since she made mistakes before you became her supervisor, my guess is that there are some competence issues along with negative feelings.
It's hard to have a supervisor who used to be a peer. It's hard to be a supervisor to someone who used to be a peer.
I'm going to solve part of your problem right now. This is super-de-duper easy. Instead of trying to get your employee to ask if the document she is cutting and pasting from is a final version, you simply save documents as proposal42_draft.doc when it is a draft and then change it to proposal42_final.doc when it's final. Easy-peasy.
Now, as for the other mistakes, what we need here is a shorter leash. She's been told that she needs to proofread, or whatever, and she's not doing it. Or, she's incapable of noticing the mistakes. If it's the former, then she has to run everything by you before she turns it in. This is a huge pain for you, but hopefully, will be a bigger pain for her and she'll start paying attention. This also blocks her access to the big-wigs and can be very frustrating. But, until she can produce error free work, absolutely necessary.
If she's incapable of noticing the mistakes then you've got a person who is in the wrong position. So, she either gets nudged towards the door or the position evolves to fit her strengths. There's nothing wrong with the latter, by the way. I'm a writer, not an editor. I don't have an editor over here (except for my commentors who can spot a misspelling or missed word a mile away), but I do at US News and she catches some things and occasionally changes my grammar to something clearer. She's very good at it. (She's a very good writer as well.)
If this person just needs a quick grammar clean up, then this might be a solution. If this person's errors, however, are of the factual kind, this may be manage out situation. You have to decide if the problem is fixable. Include her in your decision making process.
Explain that these errors have got to stop and you are willing to help her with that. What support does she think she needs? Are the deadlines too tight? Does she not know how to do research? (The first page of Google hits does not equal "research.") If it's just sloppiness, then the short leash should help.
She may need a mentor who can help her through. Or, this may be too much effort for a part time person. (Yes, I can be heartless.)
But, work with her, not against her. Be clear in expectations. Follow up every time. And good luck.
Since I became her supervisor, I removed her from online publishing, but now she is doing grant proposals and documents for the government, and is still making mistakes! I am usually the first one called into the boss' office, because she cuts and pastes from drafts of my work(cut-and-paste is a common practice here), and doesn't bother to check--or ask me--if the document is the final version, and therefore had been reviewed for errors.
She is also absent-minded when it comes to other things. For example, I requested that she make copies of her timesheet so I have records of her projects in case the boss asks me. She has so far done this only once. Also, another co-worker has complained that when she asks her to research something, she would agree, and then not do it.
I have no idea how to tell her that she really needs to be more focused and detail-oriented, especially since (a) I had done so in the past and it hadn't worked, (b) she has a tendency to say "Okay," and then no to do what we asked her to do, and (c) apparently she's upset that I was assigned as her supervisor. Do you have any advice for me?
First, I hope that you were not made a supervisor strictly because you have seniority. That's about the worst reason to promote someone. (Although, admittedly, it's a very popular reason for promotion. Longevity does not=good supervisor material.) Because you are not sticking your head in the sand with this employee, it seems like you earned this role by more than not quitting.
Your first issue is that she is an old friend who is ticked off that you are her boss. Her failures could just be passive aggressive behavior--and may even be subconscious. This is a frustrating situation. Now, since she made mistakes before you became her supervisor, my guess is that there are some competence issues along with negative feelings.
It's hard to have a supervisor who used to be a peer. It's hard to be a supervisor to someone who used to be a peer.
I'm going to solve part of your problem right now. This is super-de-duper easy. Instead of trying to get your employee to ask if the document she is cutting and pasting from is a final version, you simply save documents as proposal42_draft.doc when it is a draft and then change it to proposal42_final.doc when it's final. Easy-peasy.
Now, as for the other mistakes, what we need here is a shorter leash. She's been told that she needs to proofread, or whatever, and she's not doing it. Or, she's incapable of noticing the mistakes. If it's the former, then she has to run everything by you before she turns it in. This is a huge pain for you, but hopefully, will be a bigger pain for her and she'll start paying attention. This also blocks her access to the big-wigs and can be very frustrating. But, until she can produce error free work, absolutely necessary.
If she's incapable of noticing the mistakes then you've got a person who is in the wrong position. So, she either gets nudged towards the door or the position evolves to fit her strengths. There's nothing wrong with the latter, by the way. I'm a writer, not an editor. I don't have an editor over here (except for my commentors who can spot a misspelling or missed word a mile away), but I do at US News and she catches some things and occasionally changes my grammar to something clearer. She's very good at it. (She's a very good writer as well.)
If this person just needs a quick grammar clean up, then this might be a solution. If this person's errors, however, are of the factual kind, this may be manage out situation. You have to decide if the problem is fixable. Include her in your decision making process.
Explain that these errors have got to stop and you are willing to help her with that. What support does she think she needs? Are the deadlines too tight? Does she not know how to do research? (The first page of Google hits does not equal "research.") If it's just sloppiness, then the short leash should help.
She may need a mentor who can help her through. Or, this may be too much effort for a part time person. (Yes, I can be heartless.)
But, work with her, not against her. Be clear in expectations. Follow up every time. And good luck.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Just a little brag
No real post here. Just writing to say, I'm going to Paris this weekend. Neener-neener.
And, no, I won't eat escargot. I don't care that it is delicious. Blech.
And, no, I won't eat escargot. I don't care that it is delicious. Blech.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
This is why people think HR is stupid and evil
It's that wonderful time of the year--flu season! And to add to it, this year adds in the lovely schweingrippe to the mix. So, I imagine that hospitals are putting together all sorts of plans for how to handle this. I like to have positive attitudes (ha!) towards those in leadership positions. Then I read this from At Your Cervix (she's a labor and delivery nurse):
What dunderhead in HR thought this up? Here are medical people who will be taking care of sick people, or newborns, or pregnant/post-partum women and we want to both require them to take time off and penalize them for doing so? I presume after a certain number of "occurrences" a person gets terminated, or suspended, or something else bad.
Now, some HR defender will say, "Hey, all the employees just have to get flu shots and they won't get sick. The punishment is because they failed to get flu shots." I agree that they should get flu shots (in my non-medical agreement sort of way). The company I used to work for gave free flu shots to everyone (on a voluntary basis, of course) because it was cheaper than having people gone for days at a time. So flu shots, yes.
However, a flu shot is no guarantee that you won't get the flu. Two years ago, three people that I know personally ended up in the hospital with the flu, even though they had previously had flu shots. No flu shot covers all possible mutations of the nasty little virus. So, you can't use that against the person.
Furthermore, this is a hospital, where you are surely more likely to be exposed to germs than the normal human. (Although I ride public transportation, so I'm surprised I'm still alive, quite frankly. I will admit, though, that the Swiss are so clean, their snot is probably sterile.)
And I hear another HR defender saying, "This was probably a decision from Finance! HR had no say in it." Hogwash I say. And even though I love to complain about finance as much as the next person, it's not finance's job to worry about people. That is HR's job. (Not saying that finance should be filled with heartless people, but they have a different focus.) Our job is to lead people. Our job is to see that the business succeeds and the best way to do that is to have the best people and take care of them.
If it was the CFO who insisted on this lame-brained policy, then the head of HR should have the knowledge and skill necessary to demonstrate how this will hurt the hospital. Because he/she obviously didn't, I'll help out a bit. (And I believe this hospital is in PA, my former home, so when we return their in a few years, I'll be happy to take this job, as I am now demonstrating that I can do it better than the current head of HR. Of course, a kindergartener could do this better, as a 5 year old would never think to punish someone for being sick.)
1. This is a huge morale killer. Even if a person doesn't get sick, she now knows that the hospital doesn't care one bit about her. People who are unhappy at work do not perform as well as happy employees.
2. There is no cost savings in this. If you end up terminating an employee due to too many "occurrences" you will need to replace her. It costs much more than one week's salary to recruit, hire, and train a new employee. It would not be unusual for it to take 6 months for a new employee to be as competent as the one you've just fired.
3. It is likely to increase the percentage of people coming to work while sick. If you have bills (and everybody does), you need your job. As long as you can hobble around, you'll be there, infecting everyone around you and lying about how great you feel. This will mean more people will get sick and your patients will suffer as well.
4. Voluntary turnover will increase as well. I know the economy is terrible. That just means that only your best employees will be able to find new jobs. Do you understand that? The BEST will be able to find new jobs. Is that what you want? To drive your best employees out? Who do you think pulls companies through recessions? It's not the slackers. It's the best employees.
5. Punishment should be reserved for someone who skips work to go shopping, or because they have a hangover. Punishments should not be given for involuntary illnesses. And yes, you can wash your hands all day long and use hand sanitizer and still get the flu.
This is just plain bad policy. I hope they come to their senses.
On top of all of this, our hospital has put out the following rules: anyone with confirmed H1N1 or suspected flu must NOT work for the duration of the fever. Also, you may NOT work for at least 24 hrs of being without a fever (not using tylenol or ibuprofen to reduce the fever). All time missed at work....get this......will be considered an UNEXCUSED ABSENCE and you will receive an "occurrence" for the time called off.
What dunderhead in HR thought this up? Here are medical people who will be taking care of sick people, or newborns, or pregnant/post-partum women and we want to both require them to take time off and penalize them for doing so? I presume after a certain number of "occurrences" a person gets terminated, or suspended, or something else bad.
Now, some HR defender will say, "Hey, all the employees just have to get flu shots and they won't get sick. The punishment is because they failed to get flu shots." I agree that they should get flu shots (in my non-medical agreement sort of way). The company I used to work for gave free flu shots to everyone (on a voluntary basis, of course) because it was cheaper than having people gone for days at a time. So flu shots, yes.
However, a flu shot is no guarantee that you won't get the flu. Two years ago, three people that I know personally ended up in the hospital with the flu, even though they had previously had flu shots. No flu shot covers all possible mutations of the nasty little virus. So, you can't use that against the person.
Furthermore, this is a hospital, where you are surely more likely to be exposed to germs than the normal human. (Although I ride public transportation, so I'm surprised I'm still alive, quite frankly. I will admit, though, that the Swiss are so clean, their snot is probably sterile.)
And I hear another HR defender saying, "This was probably a decision from Finance! HR had no say in it." Hogwash I say. And even though I love to complain about finance as much as the next person, it's not finance's job to worry about people. That is HR's job. (Not saying that finance should be filled with heartless people, but they have a different focus.) Our job is to lead people. Our job is to see that the business succeeds and the best way to do that is to have the best people and take care of them.
If it was the CFO who insisted on this lame-brained policy, then the head of HR should have the knowledge and skill necessary to demonstrate how this will hurt the hospital. Because he/she obviously didn't, I'll help out a bit. (And I believe this hospital is in PA, my former home, so when we return their in a few years, I'll be happy to take this job, as I am now demonstrating that I can do it better than the current head of HR. Of course, a kindergartener could do this better, as a 5 year old would never think to punish someone for being sick.)
1. This is a huge morale killer. Even if a person doesn't get sick, she now knows that the hospital doesn't care one bit about her. People who are unhappy at work do not perform as well as happy employees.
2. There is no cost savings in this. If you end up terminating an employee due to too many "occurrences" you will need to replace her. It costs much more than one week's salary to recruit, hire, and train a new employee. It would not be unusual for it to take 6 months for a new employee to be as competent as the one you've just fired.
3. It is likely to increase the percentage of people coming to work while sick. If you have bills (and everybody does), you need your job. As long as you can hobble around, you'll be there, infecting everyone around you and lying about how great you feel. This will mean more people will get sick and your patients will suffer as well.
4. Voluntary turnover will increase as well. I know the economy is terrible. That just means that only your best employees will be able to find new jobs. Do you understand that? The BEST will be able to find new jobs. Is that what you want? To drive your best employees out? Who do you think pulls companies through recessions? It's not the slackers. It's the best employees.
5. Punishment should be reserved for someone who skips work to go shopping, or because they have a hangover. Punishments should not be given for involuntary illnesses. And yes, you can wash your hands all day long and use hand sanitizer and still get the flu.
This is just plain bad policy. I hope they come to their senses.
What's in it for me?
I work in a small creative firm and have an employee who is technically very good, but a few times now has expressed this "what's in it for me?" attitude when asked to consider contributing to something that is outside the realm of their regular job. (And don't get me wrong, it's not like we regularly ask or expect people to put in overtime, or go above and beyond the call of duty, but from time to time every company needs its people to go that extra mile).
By way of example, our company recently ran an internal contest to rewrite our phone system message to the outside world. Senior management figured that with a bunch of creatives in-house it would be a positive step to invite internal people to come up with something witty and fun. The first thing this employee asked was "What's in it form me? Are there prizes or anything?" When the contest creator explained that they'd get corporate recognition in the newsletter and the opportunity to influence the public image, this person responded that wasn't enough, and that the company was "saving money" by not hiring someone creative to do it, so they didn't feel "incented" to participate. I was told about my employee's "attitude"...
Now I hate the usual generic management-speak about "being a team player" and "can do" attitudes and all that, but it really irked me and this obviously reflects badly on this person in terms of general perception within the company. It's not like we were asking people to work nights and weekends for a month or anything. I also don't like this "what's in it for me?" attitude over the smallest things being propagated amongst my team. Maybe I'm old school, but it comes across as negative and unmotivated to me. I mean it's one thing if that was the person's internal perception, but another entirely to publicly declare that unless they are getting compensated financially, they aren't interested in participating in something as simple and silly as a phone message contest.
My problem is that I don't know how to approach this person to indicate that it makes me less inclined to promote them, and certainly doesn't reflect well on them with respect to how they are perceived by others in the company without it coming off as critical and/or confrontational
I'm looking for a non-confrontational way to explain that this kind of attitude is going to hurt this person's career, here or anywhere... and encourage them to reconsider their responses to these kinds of things. I don't want to sound like I am spouting "Successories" poster jargon, however. Can you help or am I unrealistic in thinking that I can somehow influence a person to change this kind of behavior?
You say you don't want to criticize, but criticism is actually necessary for improvement. Let me give you an example: I'm taking German lessons. My teachers correct us every time we make a mistake. This way we learn. A friend, who is also new to Switzerland, but no longer taking formal lessons said he's given up learning anything from adults: "If I make a grammar mistake, they just politely ignore it, even when I tell them that I want to be corrected. I now try to talk to children as much as possible, as they'll always point out my errors."
Now, of course, the difference between us German learners and your employee is that we know we need help and we want it. Unfortunately, for you, part of the job of a manager is to let your employees know when they need help. This is critical for everyone's success.
Use the contest issue, as it's a clear example. Often times when people go to address a behavior their minds go completely blank and they can't think of a single example, even though there are probably 482 examples.
Sit the employee down, in a closed door meeting (no listening co-workers). Explain that she is technically very good, but that her attitude is causing some problems. Use the contest example. She will complain and protest. Expect this.
Say: "The negative attitude makes me less inclined to promote you, and certainly doesn't reflect well on you with respect to how you are perceived by others in the company."
She will deny and complain and protest and reiterate how stupid the contest is. You can show empathy, but then it's your turn to reiterate what you said above. (And note, I just copied this from your e-mail. You already know what needs to be said.)
After your third iteration of this, tell her politely that the conversation is now over and it's her decision on how she responds to things, but that it does affect her career. And that's what is in it for her.
By way of example, our company recently ran an internal contest to rewrite our phone system message to the outside world. Senior management figured that with a bunch of creatives in-house it would be a positive step to invite internal people to come up with something witty and fun. The first thing this employee asked was "What's in it form me? Are there prizes or anything?" When the contest creator explained that they'd get corporate recognition in the newsletter and the opportunity to influence the public image, this person responded that wasn't enough, and that the company was "saving money" by not hiring someone creative to do it, so they didn't feel "incented" to participate. I was told about my employee's "attitude"...
Now I hate the usual generic management-speak about "being a team player" and "can do" attitudes and all that, but it really irked me and this obviously reflects badly on this person in terms of general perception within the company. It's not like we were asking people to work nights and weekends for a month or anything. I also don't like this "what's in it for me?" attitude over the smallest things being propagated amongst my team. Maybe I'm old school, but it comes across as negative and unmotivated to me. I mean it's one thing if that was the person's internal perception, but another entirely to publicly declare that unless they are getting compensated financially, they aren't interested in participating in something as simple and silly as a phone message contest.
My problem is that I don't know how to approach this person to indicate that it makes me less inclined to promote them, and certainly doesn't reflect well on them with respect to how they are perceived by others in the company without it coming off as critical and/or confrontational
I'm looking for a non-confrontational way to explain that this kind of attitude is going to hurt this person's career, here or anywhere... and encourage them to reconsider their responses to these kinds of things. I don't want to sound like I am spouting "Successories" poster jargon, however. Can you help or am I unrealistic in thinking that I can somehow influence a person to change this kind of behavior?
You say you don't want to criticize, but criticism is actually necessary for improvement. Let me give you an example: I'm taking German lessons. My teachers correct us every time we make a mistake. This way we learn. A friend, who is also new to Switzerland, but no longer taking formal lessons said he's given up learning anything from adults: "If I make a grammar mistake, they just politely ignore it, even when I tell them that I want to be corrected. I now try to talk to children as much as possible, as they'll always point out my errors."
Now, of course, the difference between us German learners and your employee is that we know we need help and we want it. Unfortunately, for you, part of the job of a manager is to let your employees know when they need help. This is critical for everyone's success.
Use the contest issue, as it's a clear example. Often times when people go to address a behavior their minds go completely blank and they can't think of a single example, even though there are probably 482 examples.
Sit the employee down, in a closed door meeting (no listening co-workers). Explain that she is technically very good, but that her attitude is causing some problems. Use the contest example. She will complain and protest. Expect this.
Say: "The negative attitude makes me less inclined to promote you, and certainly doesn't reflect well on you with respect to how you are perceived by others in the company."
She will deny and complain and protest and reiterate how stupid the contest is. You can show empathy, but then it's your turn to reiterate what you said above. (And note, I just copied this from your e-mail. You already know what needs to be said.)
After your third iteration of this, tell her politely that the conversation is now over and it's her decision on how she responds to things, but that it does affect her career. And that's what is in it for her.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Termination Blues
I am a Superintendent in a unionized maintenance shop. I've terminated many employees over the years. Most deserved it as they had violated rules over and over.
I recently terminated a man with three kids and a wife who was out of work. He had been with us nine years. He worked third shift. He was caught sleeping twice in a three month period. He was warned the first time and suspended for a day. The next time he was caught laying inside a bus, asleep with his shoes off.
I had to sit in the mediation and tell him and all in the room why this had to stick and he could not come back even on a last chance letter. I felt like if we give him a third chance, then we have to do that for everyone and most folks will think the first two times caught are free and they will sleep at will.
Anyway, the termination stuck and he has no chance of coming back. The Union will not take this one to arbitration.
The more I think about this guy and the situation he is now in the more it is killing me inside. I'm O.K. and still working and he is now in a very bad place in his life. He begged for his job back and cried. It almost killed me to stay firm but now. . . as it is all over I can't sleep at night. I'm thinking of going to our EAP but will they tell others and will I get known as a bad manager.
I've never felt so bad. I even considered going to our G.M. and trying to have the case opened back up and bring the guy back on a last chance letter.
I'm so sorry. I really am. Terminating people is one of the most difficult tasks managers have to carry out. And it is a part of the responsibilities. At least, it should be.
When I was doing mass layoffs, it was easy for me to sit in my office and look at names on my monitor and do all the paperwork and dot i's and cross t's because I didn't personally know these people. I didn't know that Karen was a single parent and that Joe's wife was sick. I didn't know that Sue had just bought a big new house with a mortgage to match. My company was so large that I just didn't know most of the people I dealt with.
You, on the other hand, know this guy. I bet you like him as well. Which makes it all the more painful to have to terminate someone. But, you did the right thing.
Now, people can point to this and say, "see managers and HR are heartless thugs! Get one toe out of line and that's it! How come you didn't talk to the man? He probably has x, y, or z and so he needs extra sleep. What about reasonable accommodations?"
Since we got those comments out of the way, I'll respond. Sleeping on the job is not like making a minor error. Especially when he's gone to the trouble to find a quiet spot to lay down and removed his shoes. I'm also willing to bet money that the two times he's been caught are only two of many times he's slept.
He got a warning the first time. He knew the consequences. He chose to do this again. If he had problem x, y, or z he should have brought it up with the boss in the first place. Most managers are nice people who want to help out their staff. But, we can't help if we don't know what is going on.
When it comes down to serious rule violations, you have to lay down a hard line. His co-workers know that he's been sleeping on the job. They know he's been fired for it. If you brought him back, there would be resentment amongst your other staff. Sure, they may say loudly that you were heartless for firing him, but they also don't want to be working with someone who's going to run off and take a nap.
I know you feel terribly guilty--because his life is so much worse off now. But, you have to remember that he chose this. If he had problems, he didn't choose to go to his supervisor. He didn't choose to go to his union. He didn't choose to go to HR. He chose to to take off his shoes and take a nap. We all get to make choices, but we don't all get to choose the consequences. He knew what the consequence would be (if he got caught, that is) and he chose to do it anyway.
I have sympathy for him. It's not an easy situation to be in. But I would not, under any circumstances, hire him back.
I'm sorry you had to go through this. You made the right choice. The fact that his union wouldn't advocate for him either indicates that they consider this a serious problem as well. I hope he finds a new job. It will make you sleep better at night.
I recently terminated a man with three kids and a wife who was out of work. He had been with us nine years. He worked third shift. He was caught sleeping twice in a three month period. He was warned the first time and suspended for a day. The next time he was caught laying inside a bus, asleep with his shoes off.
I had to sit in the mediation and tell him and all in the room why this had to stick and he could not come back even on a last chance letter. I felt like if we give him a third chance, then we have to do that for everyone and most folks will think the first two times caught are free and they will sleep at will.
Anyway, the termination stuck and he has no chance of coming back. The Union will not take this one to arbitration.
The more I think about this guy and the situation he is now in the more it is killing me inside. I'm O.K. and still working and he is now in a very bad place in his life. He begged for his job back and cried. It almost killed me to stay firm but now. . . as it is all over I can't sleep at night. I'm thinking of going to our EAP but will they tell others and will I get known as a bad manager.
I've never felt so bad. I even considered going to our G.M. and trying to have the case opened back up and bring the guy back on a last chance letter.
I'm so sorry. I really am. Terminating people is one of the most difficult tasks managers have to carry out. And it is a part of the responsibilities. At least, it should be.
When I was doing mass layoffs, it was easy for me to sit in my office and look at names on my monitor and do all the paperwork and dot i's and cross t's because I didn't personally know these people. I didn't know that Karen was a single parent and that Joe's wife was sick. I didn't know that Sue had just bought a big new house with a mortgage to match. My company was so large that I just didn't know most of the people I dealt with.
You, on the other hand, know this guy. I bet you like him as well. Which makes it all the more painful to have to terminate someone. But, you did the right thing.
Now, people can point to this and say, "see managers and HR are heartless thugs! Get one toe out of line and that's it! How come you didn't talk to the man? He probably has x, y, or z and so he needs extra sleep. What about reasonable accommodations?"
Since we got those comments out of the way, I'll respond. Sleeping on the job is not like making a minor error. Especially when he's gone to the trouble to find a quiet spot to lay down and removed his shoes. I'm also willing to bet money that the two times he's been caught are only two of many times he's slept.
He got a warning the first time. He knew the consequences. He chose to do this again. If he had problem x, y, or z he should have brought it up with the boss in the first place. Most managers are nice people who want to help out their staff. But, we can't help if we don't know what is going on.
When it comes down to serious rule violations, you have to lay down a hard line. His co-workers know that he's been sleeping on the job. They know he's been fired for it. If you brought him back, there would be resentment amongst your other staff. Sure, they may say loudly that you were heartless for firing him, but they also don't want to be working with someone who's going to run off and take a nap.
I know you feel terribly guilty--because his life is so much worse off now. But, you have to remember that he chose this. If he had problems, he didn't choose to go to his supervisor. He didn't choose to go to his union. He didn't choose to go to HR. He chose to to take off his shoes and take a nap. We all get to make choices, but we don't all get to choose the consequences. He knew what the consequence would be (if he got caught, that is) and he chose to do it anyway.
I have sympathy for him. It's not an easy situation to be in. But I would not, under any circumstances, hire him back.
I'm sorry you had to go through this. You made the right choice. The fact that his union wouldn't advocate for him either indicates that they consider this a serious problem as well. I hope he finds a new job. It will make you sleep better at night.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Development
I work for a state university. One of the requirements for evaluating our employees is that we establish "development" competencies for each employees. We must establish at least two for every employee. The state considers that every employee can improve their performance all the time.
Here is my problem. My one employee is our 63-year-old receptionist who has been with us for over 10 years. Her job duties are to meet and greet visitors, enter routine requisitions and take care of our photocopier and other machinery.
She is incredibly good at what she does. She has been receiving our top rating - Exceeds Expectations - for the last 8 years at least. She is already exemplary in performance of her duties, and is actually the top performer in the routine requisitions - I can't remember the last time I had to make a correction on her work. She can't get better at taking care of the machinery because she already has the magic touch.
And, you've never seen anyone who is so good at greeting and serving our customers and making them feel special.
So I need to find two areas that she can "develop." One of the suggestions from the state is to have the employee read a book, so I figure I can give her a book every year. So question one:
Do you or your readers have any business books you can recommend for a basic frontline employee? I'm thinking book one can be "Who moved my cheese" but what else is out there for non-management employees?
Question two: What in the heck can I use for the second development activity that won't insult her?
I'm totally going to ignore your first question, as I'm not sure what book to recommend. Hopefully my readers will have some good suggestions.
But, as for question two, there is a very simple solution to this problem: Ask her.
See, all solved! Sit down with her and say how fabulous she is and how you can't think of areas she needs to improve in, and ask what type of development activity she is interested in.
Keep in mind development doesn't just mean "doing the same job better." It also means that you are helping to prepare the person for her next job. Don't get caught in the trap of "she's a 63 year old lady. She doesn't want a different job ever." She may not, but she might. You don't want to trap her where she is. You'd never expect a 23 year old to stay in that particular job forever.
Even if she wants to stay in the same job forever, there are probably areas she feels like she could do better in. For instance, if I was a receptionist at a university, I'd jump at the chance to take a course in just about anything. If you are an academic department, she may want to take a course in that subject matter so she can relate better to what is going on. If you're an administrative department, she may want to take an introductory class in finance, or whatever it is you do.
She may say she wants to sit in on staff meetings. She may say she wants to learn some new skill. She may say she wants to take on new responsibilities. Or she may laugh and say, "there's nothing I want to develop," in which case her job is to develop something to develop.
And I bet your department is the envy of the entire university. A good receptionist is hard to find. But, don't let her fabulous performance stand in the way of her development.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Relocation
My question is regarding a relocation pay-back clause. I accepted a postion with my company that involved moving from CA to TN in February of 2009. The company gave me a lump sum (after tax) of $10,000 to cover relocation and moving expenses. Since that time, I've decided that my long term goals don't align with my company's any longer. I'm looking to leave and actually have a new job opportunity on the table that I'm seriously considering.
My problem is that when I went back and looked at the contract that I signed for the new position, it clearly states that if I leave the company within 12 months of the hire date, I am liable to pay back all (or a part) of my relocation expenses to the company.
With this in mind, here are a few questions for you:
1) Is this for real? Would a company really demand that I pay the relocation back? If so, how much do you think I would owe them? Would it be pro-rated for the number of months I worked in the position?
2) Is this enforceable? How would HR go about collecting the amount that they deem I owe? What's stopping me from just telling them to "shove it"?
3) My company currently owes me some sales commissions that have not yet been paid to me. Should I suggest that these funds be applied to cover some or all of what the company deems to be my balance due?
Let me tell you a little story. Earlier this year my husband accepted a new job that required an international relocation. Part of his contract states that if he quits in less than two years he has to repay. Do you know how freaking expensive an international relocation is? Do you? It can easily run into 6 figures (in either Swiss Francs or dollars!). Before he signed on the dotted line, we had this discussion:
Him: We're in this for two years, no matter what.
Me: Even if your boss turns into a werewolf.
Him: Right. Because we're not repaying an international relocation.
You, apparently, didn't have this chat with yourself.
Now, the chances of you finding the job you really want and starting between now and February are pretty slim (unless you already have something lined up), so you are probably worrying for nothing.
But, yes, you have to repay it. Legally and morally. You signed the contract. You took the money. It's your obligation to repay. No whining on that. The pro-rating would depend on how it is written. My guess would be at 6 months you'd have to repay 50%.
Can they come after you? You betcha! Will they? Depends on the size of the company and how annoyed you've made them. Would I count on them just sighing and saying, "Oh well! Steve ran off without repaying!" Absolutely not. They can take you to court and since you are freaking out about repaying $10,000 my guess is they have more resources then you do. In all honesty, they probably won't take you to court, but they could and if they did they'd win.
If they still owe you money, certainly you can negotiate with them on how those funds would be applied. However, this is not a question best asked until you've already landed the next job.
This also means you will leave this company on bad terms. The company and you may have different long term goals, but you'll need the reference. Even if you were stellar employee, your boss is going to have a bad taste in his mouth about this.
Repeat after me: I will repay the money I owe. I am legally and morally obligated. I will repay the money I owe. I am legally and morally obligated.
Now, let's address another issue: This company doesn't align with your long term goals. Got it. You've only been there 7 months. If it's a goal issue, staying a few more months won't hurt. Leaving now will leave you a big black mark on your resume. You must be prepared to be asked, forevermore, "Why did you stay at Acme Corp only 7 months?" And, no you can't put: District Manager, Acme Corp 2009 on your resume. We see through that. We have special glasses that show us that years only means you didn't work very much of that year. (Exception, if you worked 1998-2009, I'll allow years only. But, I still don't like it.)
If this were a 3 year repayment clause I can see why you might want to leave sooner than that, but it's a 12 month one and it's more than half gone. Suck it up and stick it out, or pay up.
My problem is that when I went back and looked at the contract that I signed for the new position, it clearly states that if I leave the company within 12 months of the hire date, I am liable to pay back all (or a part) of my relocation expenses to the company.
With this in mind, here are a few questions for you:
1) Is this for real? Would a company really demand that I pay the relocation back? If so, how much do you think I would owe them? Would it be pro-rated for the number of months I worked in the position?
2) Is this enforceable? How would HR go about collecting the amount that they deem I owe? What's stopping me from just telling them to "shove it"?
3) My company currently owes me some sales commissions that have not yet been paid to me. Should I suggest that these funds be applied to cover some or all of what the company deems to be my balance due?
Let me tell you a little story. Earlier this year my husband accepted a new job that required an international relocation. Part of his contract states that if he quits in less than two years he has to repay. Do you know how freaking expensive an international relocation is? Do you? It can easily run into 6 figures (in either Swiss Francs or dollars!). Before he signed on the dotted line, we had this discussion:
Him: We're in this for two years, no matter what.
Me: Even if your boss turns into a werewolf.
Him: Right. Because we're not repaying an international relocation.
You, apparently, didn't have this chat with yourself.
Now, the chances of you finding the job you really want and starting between now and February are pretty slim (unless you already have something lined up), so you are probably worrying for nothing.
But, yes, you have to repay it. Legally and morally. You signed the contract. You took the money. It's your obligation to repay. No whining on that. The pro-rating would depend on how it is written. My guess would be at 6 months you'd have to repay 50%.
Can they come after you? You betcha! Will they? Depends on the size of the company and how annoyed you've made them. Would I count on them just sighing and saying, "Oh well! Steve ran off without repaying!" Absolutely not. They can take you to court and since you are freaking out about repaying $10,000 my guess is they have more resources then you do. In all honesty, they probably won't take you to court, but they could and if they did they'd win.
If they still owe you money, certainly you can negotiate with them on how those funds would be applied. However, this is not a question best asked until you've already landed the next job.
This also means you will leave this company on bad terms. The company and you may have different long term goals, but you'll need the reference. Even if you were stellar employee, your boss is going to have a bad taste in his mouth about this.
Repeat after me: I will repay the money I owe. I am legally and morally obligated. I will repay the money I owe. I am legally and morally obligated.
Now, let's address another issue: This company doesn't align with your long term goals. Got it. You've only been there 7 months. If it's a goal issue, staying a few more months won't hurt. Leaving now will leave you a big black mark on your resume. You must be prepared to be asked, forevermore, "Why did you stay at Acme Corp only 7 months?" And, no you can't put: District Manager, Acme Corp 2009 on your resume. We see through that. We have special glasses that show us that years only means you didn't work very much of that year. (Exception, if you worked 1998-2009, I'll allow years only. But, I still don't like it.)
If this were a 3 year repayment clause I can see why you might want to leave sooner than that, but it's a 12 month one and it's more than half gone. Suck it up and stick it out, or pay up.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Confession and a Poll
On Friday night I had a delightful conversation with Jared from Human Resource Executive Online. He asked me what HR blogs I read regularly and I had to (gulp!) confess that I don't read too many of them. It's not because I don't love you all (I do! I really do!) it's just that discussing the nuances of the implication of card check legislation makes me feel like I'm on a tedious conference call at work.
But, I realize that most of you are much more entertaining and informative than that. I read Ask a Manager, Clue Wagon and US News' On Careers regularly. The blogs in my sidebar are looked at from time to time. But what else should I be reading every day? (Or as often as they post?)
Jared also asked me who my readers were and I had to confess that I didn't know. I mean, I know who comments, but I have a lot more hits than I do comments, so I don't know who everyone is. He wondered if they tended to be other HR folks or just normal humans. I wonder too, so take a few seconds and respond to this poll. Then we'll know!
But, I realize that most of you are much more entertaining and informative than that. I read Ask a Manager, Clue Wagon and US News' On Careers regularly. The blogs in my sidebar are looked at from time to time. But what else should I be reading every day? (Or as often as they post?)
Jared also asked me who my readers were and I had to confess that I didn't know. I mean, I know who comments, but I have a lot more hits than I do comments, so I don't know who everyone is. He wondered if they tended to be other HR folks or just normal humans. I wonder too, so take a few seconds and respond to this poll. Then we'll know!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Always Remember
Today is September 11. On September 11, 2001 I lived in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which is a short drive from NYC.
Today, I live in Switzerland, which is not quite so close and I'm ashamed to admit I didn't think about this day as I should have. It wasn't until I got home from German class, around noon my time and 6:00 a.m. East Coast Time, that I checked my Google Reader and was reminded.
I failed to remember. Please note, I didn't forget. I failed to remember. Remembering is an active thing, and I want to remember. This video was in my reader (via Instapundit and I watched it and I cried.
Please remember.
Today, I live in Switzerland, which is not quite so close and I'm ashamed to admit I didn't think about this day as I should have. It wasn't until I got home from German class, around noon my time and 6:00 a.m. East Coast Time, that I checked my Google Reader and was reminded.
I failed to remember. Please note, I didn't forget. I failed to remember. Remembering is an active thing, and I want to remember. This video was in my reader (via Instapundit and I watched it and I cried.
Please remember.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Bizarre Interview
I went through the weirdest interview yesterday. I interviewed with a panel of managers. The managers had five key questions. I was told at the beginning of the interview that they had received 200 applications and that staffing used the resumes to select 25 qualified people to interview. The hiring managers were not part of the initial screening (this is an HR related job so they were all in HR) and did NOT want to see our resumes so that they had no biases towards the candidates before the interviews. They asked us a total of 5 interview questions. They had a score sheet and were checking off answers to the questions as we went along. Maybe I am inexperienced, as I have only been in the field for two years but is this normal? Does this method add value? I am curious your opinion as an experienced HR professional on this style of interviewing.
I find this utterly bizarre. The only thing I can think of that since this is a fairly entry level position (since you only have 2 years of experience and were part of a group of 200), that the final 25 must have extremely similar backgrounds.
Why would you not want to know about experience? Why would you not want to question people about what they say they've done?
I don't get it. Maybe some of my readers do. Heck, maybe one of my readers interviewed you and can explain. (Wouldn't that be awesome?)
I find this utterly bizarre. The only thing I can think of that since this is a fairly entry level position (since you only have 2 years of experience and were part of a group of 200), that the final 25 must have extremely similar backgrounds.
Why would you not want to know about experience? Why would you not want to question people about what they say they've done?
I don't get it. Maybe some of my readers do. Heck, maybe one of my readers interviewed you and can explain. (Wouldn't that be awesome?)
Email Etiquette
An Auckland accountant was sacked for sending "confrontational" emails with words in red, in bold and in capital letters.
Now, I don't happen to think termination is a proper consequence for sending e-mails in all caps. I think beheading, or perhaps execution via firing squad would be more appropriate. For first time offenses, I think we can agree that the person should be put in stocks in the company cafeteria where everyone can laugh and point at the offender. I draw the line at spitting, because what if someone who spits has Swine Flu and then other people get it and then they write me whiny e-mails that say, "Dear EHRL, I lied about being sick back in July so I could go to the beach. Now I'm really sick and I don't have any sick days left, what should I do?" We don't want that, so let's limit ourselves to laughing and pointing, shall we?
All right, in all seriousness here the company made a HUGE (see, all caps, I'm shouting at you) mistake. Not in firing her, but in firing her for writing e-mails in all caps/bold/red. The reason they should have fired her is for being rude.
At the end of the day, she's still fired, but with the latter reason, I doubt she would have won her unjust termination claim. (I'm totally guessing because she's from New Zealand and I certainly am not a New Zealand legal expert.) The article also states that she was fired without warning. Another big mistake. (No all caps words--see, I've calmed down and am no longer yelling.)
She should have been informed, clearly, that her behavior was unacceptable and that she needed to change. At this point, it should be made clear that without the change termination would occur.
Now, I feel for the lady. You'd think it would be easy to fill out forms, but no matter how well you dummy-proof them, someone can't figure it out and does it wrong.
The reader who directed me to this, wrote the following:
How important is email etiquette (greetings, closings, tone, font, etc) in the workplace? In maintaining "workplace harmony", being liked, being promoted, etc? When I first started out as a young professional I prided myself on email "fluff" (do you know what I mean?) because I thought it was important to the reader. Now my emails are more to the point - I'm less interested in writing it, and I think most people aren't that interested in reading it either. What do you think?
On a side note, I've noticed that a person's use of exclamation points seems to be inversely related to their position up the corporate ladder
I think fluff depends upon the audience. Some people like it and some people hate it. But, when in doubt leave it out. E-mail is a great tool for getting needed information. People have entirely too many e-mails and even though I just said in the previous post that I thought conversational e-mails were a good idea, they are a good idea in the proper context. They shouldn't dominate your e-mails. I like the strictly business approach for most things.
I almost never write, "Dear Mrs. Doe." Rather, most of my e-mails start out, "Jane." The times I worry are when I'm sending an e-mail to a bunch of people and there are hierarchy issues and I never am sure about how to put first.
I close my work e-mails with a "Thanks, Evil HR Lady." Although I will admit that occasionally, I'll write "Thanks! Evil HR Lady." I should probably be put in thumb screws for the latter. Which brings me to my next point.
I'm in 100% agreement with the exclamation point rule. People who use excessive exclamation points remind me of
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
E-mail Time Wasting
I work for a rather large company. A friend of mine, who was an hourly employee, got fired for inaccurate time recording. However, she had worked there for around 9 years, did a very good job and was loved by all. She got a new boss who took issue with the way she reported her time and was fired pretty much without warning. In investigating her, they found that there were 4 other employees that she emailed with on a daily basis. Two employees have been reprimanded. I was one of those employees and have received a reprimand for excessive emailing. This reprimand has been presented to me as a “first and final notice” with threat of termination. The amount of emailing that I had with this employee was approx 7-8 emails a day. The content was short – a sentence or two most of the time. I was also nailed for forwarding larger content emails (pictures etc) to others that had been sent to me by other employees.
I have worked for the company for 8 years and am an exempt employee. I work around 50-60 hours a week with only a rare lunch break. I believe that if I am going to do a job, I am going to do it well. I am not able to complete the work well in less time. I rarely take or make personal phone calls. I do, however, check my personal email, which is not against company policy. Besides this extreme warning that I got, my boss has also informed me that I would be able to get the work done if I didn’t email so much. All the effort and extra time, without pay, is completely dismissed. Needless to say, I am really upset about all this.
My question for you is about how I can be singled out and given such a strong reprimand? The emailing policies have been overlooked or not enforced for every single person I have asked. In fact, I know of nobody else that has received a reprimand, other than the one person who was also a friend of the fired employee. I also do not understand what excessive is. Clearly we should not forward things and I will not do that. But, I am scared to death now to answer any email that is even remotely personal. A coworker announced her pregnancy and sent the sonogram and I was scared to death to even respond with “congratulations.” Personally, I do not consider 7-8 emails a day to be excessive, esp if the they were very short and discussed things as simple as if they were going out for lunch if they would bring me something. Also, with the amount of time I put into that job, that amount of emailing does not account for my overtime hours as my boss now concludes. The policy is vague and I am at the mercy of my boss’s subjective evaluation. How can I protect myself from being fired? This same boss, only a few weeks earlier, launched what felt like personal attacks on a mid year review. For the time I have worked there, I was treated as a valuable, award winning even, employee, but the new boss has a different opinion. Our HR person is someone who is not someone that I want to have anything at all. I feel like asking assistance from her would be like walking into a hungry lion’s den.
This, surprisingly, is not at all about e-mail. It may seem like it's about e-mail, but it's not. It's about a new boss who wants to change things.
The non-exempt employee who everyone liked was fired because her new boss didn't like the way she recorded time. This translates into she was putting down that she worked more hours then she did. Now, I'm not there, so I don't know whether that was an accurate assessment or not. I don't know if she was eating lunch at her desk while chatting with people the whole time, but because she was at her desk she counted it as work time, or if the new boss just wanted her to clock out every time she went to the potty.
Let's assume it was closer to the latter. Just because someone is well liked does not mean they are doing a good job. Even if she was a stellar employee, she's gone now and that's her boss's prerogative. It sounds like the e-mail investigation occurred after his mind was made up to fire her. You got caught up in this.
For the record, I don't think exchanging 7-8 short e-mails a day is a bad thing. In fact, it can be a lot more efficient than standing in the kitchen in front of the coffee pot chatting. It also helps build relationships. In my last job I worked with people at all of our company sites. I only saw these people face to face rarely. E-mail and phone was how we built our relationship.
But, as I said this is not about e-mail. Your boss pulled e-mail out as a reason for you taking so long to get your work done. He doesn't see you putting in 50-60 hours a week as a positive. He sees it as a negative.
He believes that you are being inefficient. The fact that you have time to "waste" on e-mail supports his belief. Please note, I am not saying you are inefficient. I have no idea, as I'm not there and I don't know what your job expectations are.
What you need to do is lay off the e-mailing for a while because that is an easily observable sign that you are wasting time. But, more importantly, you need to sit down with your boss and discuss how he thinks you could increase your efficiency. Do this with an open mind. I know you think you are a careful and hard worker who is using every minute wisely, but he may see things that you do not. Listen and take his suggestions.
Go into this assuming that he knows what he is talking about. This may or may not be true, but if you go in assuming the opposite you are sunk before you start. He's given you a clear signal that taking 50-60 hours a week to do your job is unacceptable to him. Listen to this. And remember, this isn't about e-mail.
I have worked for the company for 8 years and am an exempt employee. I work around 50-60 hours a week with only a rare lunch break. I believe that if I am going to do a job, I am going to do it well. I am not able to complete the work well in less time. I rarely take or make personal phone calls. I do, however, check my personal email, which is not against company policy. Besides this extreme warning that I got, my boss has also informed me that I would be able to get the work done if I didn’t email so much. All the effort and extra time, without pay, is completely dismissed. Needless to say, I am really upset about all this.
My question for you is about how I can be singled out and given such a strong reprimand? The emailing policies have been overlooked or not enforced for every single person I have asked. In fact, I know of nobody else that has received a reprimand, other than the one person who was also a friend of the fired employee. I also do not understand what excessive is. Clearly we should not forward things and I will not do that. But, I am scared to death now to answer any email that is even remotely personal. A coworker announced her pregnancy and sent the sonogram and I was scared to death to even respond with “congratulations.” Personally, I do not consider 7-8 emails a day to be excessive, esp if the they were very short and discussed things as simple as if they were going out for lunch if they would bring me something. Also, with the amount of time I put into that job, that amount of emailing does not account for my overtime hours as my boss now concludes. The policy is vague and I am at the mercy of my boss’s subjective evaluation. How can I protect myself from being fired? This same boss, only a few weeks earlier, launched what felt like personal attacks on a mid year review. For the time I have worked there, I was treated as a valuable, award winning even, employee, but the new boss has a different opinion. Our HR person is someone who is not someone that I want to have anything at all. I feel like asking assistance from her would be like walking into a hungry lion’s den.
This, surprisingly, is not at all about e-mail. It may seem like it's about e-mail, but it's not. It's about a new boss who wants to change things.
The non-exempt employee who everyone liked was fired because her new boss didn't like the way she recorded time. This translates into she was putting down that she worked more hours then she did. Now, I'm not there, so I don't know whether that was an accurate assessment or not. I don't know if she was eating lunch at her desk while chatting with people the whole time, but because she was at her desk she counted it as work time, or if the new boss just wanted her to clock out every time she went to the potty.
Let's assume it was closer to the latter. Just because someone is well liked does not mean they are doing a good job. Even if she was a stellar employee, she's gone now and that's her boss's prerogative. It sounds like the e-mail investigation occurred after his mind was made up to fire her. You got caught up in this.
For the record, I don't think exchanging 7-8 short e-mails a day is a bad thing. In fact, it can be a lot more efficient than standing in the kitchen in front of the coffee pot chatting. It also helps build relationships. In my last job I worked with people at all of our company sites. I only saw these people face to face rarely. E-mail and phone was how we built our relationship.
But, as I said this is not about e-mail. Your boss pulled e-mail out as a reason for you taking so long to get your work done. He doesn't see you putting in 50-60 hours a week as a positive. He sees it as a negative.
He believes that you are being inefficient. The fact that you have time to "waste" on e-mail supports his belief. Please note, I am not saying you are inefficient. I have no idea, as I'm not there and I don't know what your job expectations are.
What you need to do is lay off the e-mailing for a while because that is an easily observable sign that you are wasting time. But, more importantly, you need to sit down with your boss and discuss how he thinks you could increase your efficiency. Do this with an open mind. I know you think you are a careful and hard worker who is using every minute wisely, but he may see things that you do not. Listen and take his suggestions.
Go into this assuming that he knows what he is talking about. This may or may not be true, but if you go in assuming the opposite you are sunk before you start. He's given you a clear signal that taking 50-60 hours a week to do your job is unacceptable to him. Listen to this. And remember, this isn't about e-mail.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Our "friend" the pharmacist
I posted a little story yesterday about a pharmacist who made several inappropriate remarks. Not surprisingly, most of those who commented identified the man as a jerk and alternately asked for his dismissal, write up or behind in a training class.
The thing that concerns me the most about this story is not that the pharmacist was a jerk, but that the other employees laughed along with him.
Let's face it. Society has (for some unknown reason) determined that pregnant women are fair game and that your child bearing decisions are open for criticism. Before I had children people constantly asked when I was going to have children. Once I got pregnant, people started to ask when I was going to have my next one. (Answer: We're going to wait and see if we like this one first.)
When you're pregnant, your weight, your age, and your diet--normally forbidden topics--become the focus of strangers. (Another true story: When I was pregnant with offspring #1, a co-worker used to berate me for eating popcorn. Popcorn! Don't you know it's full of salt??? I did know it was full of salt, and I also knew that my blood pressure was on the low side and I wasn't having problems with water retention. I also knew that this coworker had smoked during her entire pregnancy. But in her mind, my salt was worse than her cigarettes.)
Women have story after story about how people have told them they are going to ruin their only child and they really need to have more kids or that they are going to destroy the earth by over-populating it.
So, it doesn't surprise me that this man felt that he could comment on this woman's family size. He thought he was being funny.
So, as for him (assuming and investigation confirmed the story), he'd get a formal warning with the clear understanding that questions of pregnancy and birth control are only appropriate when it is relevant to the prescription he is filling. He would also be informed that similar comments on someone's weight, height, age, marital status, whatever, are inappropriate as well. He would be required to write an apology letter to the woman.
But the real problem is the culture at that pharmacy counter. If the other workers knew what was going on enough to giggle at what he was saying, then they also knew that the victim was not amused and that his actions were inappropriate. And they not only giggled (I agree, sometimes you just can't help it, even if it is inappropriate), but they didn't stop the behavior either.
I would be concerned that we had developed a culture where employees are not willing (or not comfortable) stepping into a situation like this. This is a culture that is ripe for bullying.
The district manager, corporate HR, or even the store manager may be unaware that inappropriate behavior is occurring. And it appears that the only way to get truly through to a bully is through peers. The fact that the other pharmacist and the tech just laughed scares me.
One commentator, who labeled himself (herself?) as a pharmacist wrote:
This person is a bully. This person scares me. That culture is exactly what I want to stamp out. So, where would I start? With this person's boss. Not to punish, but to see what is going on that made this employee think this inappropriate comment was appropriate.
It's important, in retail and all businesses, to treat the customer right. But, in order to do that, you need to make sure that your employees feel comfortable doing what is right.
The thing that concerns me the most about this story is not that the pharmacist was a jerk, but that the other employees laughed along with him.
Let's face it. Society has (for some unknown reason) determined that pregnant women are fair game and that your child bearing decisions are open for criticism. Before I had children people constantly asked when I was going to have children. Once I got pregnant, people started to ask when I was going to have my next one. (Answer: We're going to wait and see if we like this one first.)
When you're pregnant, your weight, your age, and your diet--normally forbidden topics--become the focus of strangers. (Another true story: When I was pregnant with offspring #1, a co-worker used to berate me for eating popcorn. Popcorn! Don't you know it's full of salt??? I did know it was full of salt, and I also knew that my blood pressure was on the low side and I wasn't having problems with water retention. I also knew that this coworker had smoked during her entire pregnancy. But in her mind, my salt was worse than her cigarettes.)
Women have story after story about how people have told them they are going to ruin their only child and they really need to have more kids or that they are going to destroy the earth by over-populating it.
So, it doesn't surprise me that this man felt that he could comment on this woman's family size. He thought he was being funny.
So, as for him (assuming and investigation confirmed the story), he'd get a formal warning with the clear understanding that questions of pregnancy and birth control are only appropriate when it is relevant to the prescription he is filling. He would also be informed that similar comments on someone's weight, height, age, marital status, whatever, are inappropriate as well. He would be required to write an apology letter to the woman.
But the real problem is the culture at that pharmacy counter. If the other workers knew what was going on enough to giggle at what he was saying, then they also knew that the victim was not amused and that his actions were inappropriate. And they not only giggled (I agree, sometimes you just can't help it, even if it is inappropriate), but they didn't stop the behavior either.
I would be concerned that we had developed a culture where employees are not willing (or not comfortable) stepping into a situation like this. This is a culture that is ripe for bullying.
The district manager, corporate HR, or even the store manager may be unaware that inappropriate behavior is occurring. And it appears that the only way to get truly through to a bully is through peers. The fact that the other pharmacist and the tech just laughed scares me.
One commentator, who labeled himself (herself?) as a pharmacist wrote:
the pharmacist is more educated than anyone in HR, so he can say what he wants and you won't do a damn thing.
This person is a bully. This person scares me. That culture is exactly what I want to stamp out. So, where would I start? With this person's boss. Not to punish, but to see what is going on that made this employee think this inappropriate comment was appropriate.
It's important, in retail and all businesses, to treat the customer right. But, in order to do that, you need to make sure that your employees feel comfortable doing what is right.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
What would you do?
A friend had the following experience:
This morning I took the children to the pharmacy to get some breathe right strips for my toddler. He has been a little congested at night. Anyway, I went up to the consultation window to ask the pharmacist a question about this saline nasal spray for children. I was holding my daughter and both boys were standing right next to me, well groomed, calm, quiet, and well behaved. I was having a great morning, I don't think I looked frazzled or overtired or anything like that.
Instead of answering my question about the nasal spray, he asked, "Did all of these children come out of you?" I didn't respond at all. I just stared at him.
He continued, "Wow, you just pop them out like popcorn." I repeated my question about the nasal spray. He finally answered my question. Then he asked my children how old they were. They answered (3, 4, and the four year old answered for the 18 month old.) Then the pharmacist said, "Oh, and it looks like you have another one coming, too." The four year old says smile with a huge, "Yes, we have a new baby coming!".
Then the pharmacist said, "You know, we sell birth control here".
I was so surprised that he said that! A female pharmacist behind him and a female employee (but not a pharmacist) both started laughing loudly behind him. I couldn't believe that two ladies would find that funny.
I struggle with temperance, so I bit my tongue (I LITERALLY bit down on my tongue because my children were with me and what I wanted to say was not okay to say, especially in front of them). Instead I said, "Well that would be really sad. We love children in this family and we are very happy that we are going to have a new baby soon".
The pharmacist was still holding the nasal spray, which is why I hadn't walked away before this point.
I really found his comments inappropriate, especially in front of my children. I also want to be clear that even if my children were poorly groomed and ill behaved I would have found his comments inappropriate. But it was the case that my children appear (and are!) adorable, healthy, well cared for, and happy.
She is going to be writing a letter to the store management as well as the corporate office. My question for all of you is what would you do/say to one of your employees if you got a letter detailing this story.
I'll give my thoughts on it Thursday. I don't want to sway anybody.
This morning I took the children to the pharmacy to get some breathe right strips for my toddler. He has been a little congested at night. Anyway, I went up to the consultation window to ask the pharmacist a question about this saline nasal spray for children. I was holding my daughter and both boys were standing right next to me, well groomed, calm, quiet, and well behaved. I was having a great morning, I don't think I looked frazzled or overtired or anything like that.
Instead of answering my question about the nasal spray, he asked, "Did all of these children come out of you?" I didn't respond at all. I just stared at him.
He continued, "Wow, you just pop them out like popcorn." I repeated my question about the nasal spray. He finally answered my question. Then he asked my children how old they were. They answered (3, 4, and the four year old answered for the 18 month old.) Then the pharmacist said, "Oh, and it looks like you have another one coming, too." The four year old says smile with a huge, "Yes, we have a new baby coming!".
Then the pharmacist said, "You know, we sell birth control here".
I was so surprised that he said that! A female pharmacist behind him and a female employee (but not a pharmacist) both started laughing loudly behind him. I couldn't believe that two ladies would find that funny.
I struggle with temperance, so I bit my tongue (I LITERALLY bit down on my tongue because my children were with me and what I wanted to say was not okay to say, especially in front of them). Instead I said, "Well that would be really sad. We love children in this family and we are very happy that we are going to have a new baby soon".
The pharmacist was still holding the nasal spray, which is why I hadn't walked away before this point.
I really found his comments inappropriate, especially in front of my children. I also want to be clear that even if my children were poorly groomed and ill behaved I would have found his comments inappropriate. But it was the case that my children appear (and are!) adorable, healthy, well cared for, and happy.
She is going to be writing a letter to the store management as well as the corporate office. My question for all of you is what would you do/say to one of your employees if you got a letter detailing this story.
I'll give my thoughts on it Thursday. I don't want to sway anybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
