You gotta check out Target’s totally tone-deaf guidance for managers

You gotta check out Target’s totally tone-deaf guidance for managers

target manager guidance

Searching for a tool to help managers deal with a multi-generational workforce? No worries. Target’s got it all figured out. 

An internal Target training document, Managing Generational Differences, was recently leaked to Gawker. And it is one astonishingly cynical and tone-deaf piece of guidance.

The guidance gives managers advice on how to handle employees in four categories: veterans (born 1922-1944), Baby Boomers (1945-1964), Generation X (1965-1980) and Generation Y (1980-2000).

Its over-arching message: If you pretend to care about what each of these generational groups care about, you can probably get them to do their jobs without too much trouble.

In a convenient, easy-to-use format

Many managers spend a lot of time trying to figure out ways to motivate and support employees on a case-by-case basis, working out each individual’s strengths and weaknesses.

Target ain’t playing that.

Managing Generational Differences lays out, in convenient chart form, profiles for the four groups. Forget that stuff about managing individual people, no matter what their age, race, religion, etc. At least on the age issue, Target’s got everybody slotted into the appropriate pigeonhole.

For instance (according to Target):

  • Veterans — the old coots — are “patriotic, practical, dedicated, hierarchical, given to personal sacrifice and delayed gratification, (and) economical.”
  • Baby Boomers are “optimistic, driven, seek personal gratification, (and) generous.”
  • Gen X employees are “balanced, (exhibit) conditional loyalty, (and) skeptical.”
  • Gen Yers? They’re “confident, determined, upbeat, inclusive,tolerant, informal (and) civic-minded.”

Work styles? Here’s how those break down:

  • Veterans — “loyal, formal, diligent, by the book, stable, disciplined, uncomfortable with ambiguity, slow to adapt to change, (try to) avoid conflict, (and) reluctant to question or voice disagreement.’
  • Baby Boomers — “competitive, hardworking, service oriented, team player, driver, not budget minded, value process over results, overly sensitive to feedback, (and) judgmental of different viewpoints.”
  • Gen X — “efficient, effective, informal, adaptable, independent, impatient, lack people skills (and are) cynical.”
  • Gen Y — “multi-task(ing), seek new and meaningful challenges, loquacious, need supervision and structure, (and) inexperienced at handling difficult people issues.”

Their views on technology: Veterans find it “complex and challenging.” Boomers think it’s “necessary for progress and achievement.” Gen Xers view it as “practical tools to get things done.” And Gen Yers ask, “What else is there?”

There’s a lot more. Veterans are loyal to the organization; Gen Xers are loyal only to themselves. Baby Boomers have respect for authority; Gen Yers, not so much.

And here’s how to talk to them

Fortunately for its managers, Target not only describes employees in various generations, it provides suggestions on how each group should be coached. Here’s a selection:

Gen Y

  • Be open to … new and different ways of working

  • Involve them in significant projects

  • Acknowledge their need for connection by helping them feel part of the group

  •  Build a fun, challenging and fast-paced work environment, and

  • Look for ways to combine work and play.

Gen X

  • Acknowledge and relate to their cynicism

  • Establish the outer boundaries and allow them to operate more freely among them

  • Use clear and specific language when communicating

  • Understand and honor their need for a work/life balance as long as responsibilities and expectations are being met, and

  • Create a fun, relaxed work atmosphere.

Baby Boomers

  • Acknowledge their experience, expertise, dedication and length of service

  • Use them for mentors

  • Demonstrate that you are carrying their share of the load

  • Speak optimistically and look at things in terms of meeting objectives and achieving, and

  • Probe if you suspect conflict — they may not be direct.


  • Acknowledge and leverage their experience, expertise dedication and length of service

  • Be direct but polite — don’t disregard social graces

  • Appeal to the traditional values of loyalty, hard work and family

  • Avoid situations where they could lose face while others are watching, and

  • Be patient with their approach to technology; allow time and explain the logic behind the technology.

And you though this management stuff was complicated.

Then there’s the legal side …

OK, so this is a remarkably patronizing and demeaning way to manage employees.

It could also lead to some serious legal problems. Here’s employment attorney Jon Hyman’s take on the Target document:

When you are sued for discrimination, your training materials are fair game in litigation. While you write them to aid your employees, you must do so with (at least) one eye on the jury that will read them during trial. You do not want to have your manager explain to a jury, in an age discrimination case, if he thought the plaintiff was “slow to adapt to change” when he made the termination decision.







For more HR News, please visit: You gotta check out Target’s totally tone-deaf guidance for managers

Source: News from HR Morning

Top 10 questions employees have about your health benefits

If you polled your company’s health plan participants and asked them what they wanted to know most about their benefits options, what would they say? This is a pretty good indicator.

Towers Watson, which runs a private health exchange called OneExchange, recently analyzed the questions individual participants in its exchange were asking and complied the following list.

It’s likely a pretty good barometer of the kinds of things your employees are wondering, and it may be a good starting point when trying to decide in which direction to take your benefits educations efforts next.

Here are the top 10 questions OneExchange participants asked (follow by HR Morning’s thoughts on each):

  1. Which plan has the lowest cost? As you know, this is not an easy question to answer when you offer multiple plans. Some employees just want to know what’ll result in the lowest payroll deduction. And your employees may not understand why you’re not just telling them which one that is. As you know, it’s because the “lowest cost” plan may be more expensive if the employee needs medical care (as it’s likely to cover less of those costs). Try to convey the message (in not such harsh terms) that they may get what they pay for with “low-cost” plans.
  2. What are the copays of the plans being offered? Not all plans come with copays. Some employees may not realize that, especially if they’re used to paying copays. Try to give employees as clear of a picture as you can of what they’ll end up paying in total for similar procedures under each of the plans you’re offering.
  3. Why does my health plan have a high deductible? Employees coming over from a plan without a high deductible may suffer from sticker shock when they realize what major medical care could cost them under a high-deductible plan. Sometimes, to calm their nerves it just takes an explanation of the merits of a high-deductible plan — such as using a health reimbursement or health savings account to help cover deductible costs, or lower plan premiums.
  4. What’s the difference between a gold, silver and bronze plan? Public exchanges have to place plans i metal tiers depending on the percentage of the cost of care they’ll cover. Some private exchanges have also adopted this plan comparison model. Your employer-sponsored plan may not offer “gold,” “silver” or “bronze” plans per se, but you may want to consider letting employees know which of these tiers your plans would slide into. That way employees know what open market plans yours compare to.
  5. What do I need to do to earn my wellness dollars? There’s still a lot of interest in wellness programs out there (Towers Watson said 50% of OneExchange enrollees would be interested in wellness activities). If you offer one, and tie financial incentives to it, make sure you clearly spell out during open enrollment what employees have to do to earn those incentives — as well as when and how they’ll get the money.
  6. How do I know which doctors are part of the plan? Make sure it’s easy for employees to find out which doctors are part of the plans you offer. This may require going onto your carrier’s website and looking up doctors yourself to find out what’s involved. That way, if employees come to you with questions, you have a better idea of how to help them.
  7. What’s the difference between an HRA, HSA and FSA? Make sure any terms associated with the plans you offer are clearly explained in plain English. Have a few employees read over your plan’s glossary, and address anything they find confusing before unleashing it on your entire workforce.
  8. What does the prescription drug plan cover? Employees will want to know if the drugs they’re taking are covered. When possible, direct them to a plan representative they can speak to about their individual circumstances.
  9. What’s the difference between insurers? In an effort to differentiate themselves, insurers try to excel at one aspect of insurance coverage. In other words, they’re all trying to “hang their hat” on something different. Find out what that is and communicate it to your workers.
  10. If I want to keep the plan I had last year, what do I need to do? If they’ll be automatically re-enrolled, make sure your open enrollment materials make that clear. Still, you want to remind them to review the coverage levels they selected last year to make sure they’re still adequate.

Source: Towers Watson

For more HR News, please visit: Top 10 questions employees have about your health benefits

Source: News from HR Morning

Obamacare tax relief on its way for some employers

The Affordable Care Act imposes an excise tax — with the potential to reach $36,500 per affected employee per year — on employers that fail to abide by the law’s rules. 

The tax can levied for things like failing to abide by the law’s maximum waiting period rules (full-time employees can’t be forced to wait longer than 90 days to be health plan-eligible), having out-of-pocket limits that exceed the law’s thresholds and failing to cover certain contraceptives.

But it can also be levied upon employers for providing cash — pre-tax or post-tax — to help employees purchase health insurance in the individual market. Arrangements like this — also known as “employer payment plans” — trigger this $100 per day, per affected individual excise tax.

However, the IRS just announced that it’ll be offering transition relief from the tax to small employers (those with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees) that have established these payment plans through June 30, 2015.

In other words, small employers won’t have to worry about the tax unless they still have one of these prohibited plans in place after June 30, 2015.

What’s prohibited?

To recap, here’s what employers can’t do in this area that would trigger the excise tax:

  • Offer cash to help employees pay for individual market coverage. The DOL says because such arrangements can’t be integrated with a group health plan, they are basically their own health plan — and they violate the prohibition on dollar limits for coverage (assuming you’re not offering employees an unlimited amount of funds).
  • Offer high-risk employees a choice between plan enrollment or cash. An employer cannot approach an employee who is a high claims risk and offer the person the option of accepting cash (presumably to purchase coverage in the individual market) or enroll in a company-sponsored plan. The DOL says this amounts to discrimination — because those with health problems would be receiving a benefit that’s not available to employees without health problems.

Why small employers?

Now you may be asking: Why are small employers getting the break and not larger ones?

The answer is the problems and delays related to the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP).

The SHOP was a major selling point to get small businesses on board with the health reform law before it was passed. It was supposed to be a marketplace in which small employers could compare health plans and offer multiple plan options to employees.

But, as with other part of the law, the program’s implementation has been stymied by delays and requirement cutbacks.

The IRS, in its notice about the excise tax transition relief period, said the relief was being offered because the SHOP market is “still transitioning and the transition by eligible employers to SHOP Marketplace coverage or other alternatives will take time to implement …”

For more HR News, please visit: Obamacare tax relief on its way for some employers

Source: News from HR Morning

Heads up: The feds are cracking down on 401(k) hardship withdrawals

Here’s another reason why employers should limit (or even eliminate altogether) workers’ opportunities for 401(k) hardship withdrawals.  

Both the DOL and the IRS appear to be ramping up their enforcement of noncompliant hardship withdrawals.

That’s because the feds are worried about leakage in retirement plans – i.e., withdrawals made before retirement that permanently depletes savings. Hardship withdrawals are a big part of the leakage problem.

Because of their concern, the feds’ are checking to make sure that employers are following the very specific criteria for these withdrawals.

Surviving the scrutiny

To avoid getting caught in the feds’ crosshairs, there are a number of steps employers can take.
First, ensure your processes for 401(k) hardship withdrawals gibe with the feds’ guidelines. The Service’s FAQ should be used to check against your own policies. Here’s a breakdown of some key points in that FAQ:

  • Plan documents must spell out the specific criteria you use to make hardship determinations.
  • A process must be in place to verify the hardship withdrawal meets the IRS’ “immediate and heavy financial need” requirement.
  • Documentation must be created to prove the worker has exhausted any available loans and resources (insurance, bank accounts, etc.).
  • The withdrawal shouldn’t exceed the amount necessary to satisfy the immediate need.
  • Elective deferrals should generally be suspended before the withdrawal is taken.
  • Employers aren’t required to offer 401(k) hardship withdrawals.

If increased federal enforcement and compliance burdens aren’t worth the hassle, firms should consider eliminating the hardship withdrawal option altogether.

For more HR News, please visit: Heads up: The feds are cracking down on 401(k) hardship withdrawals

Source: News from HR Morning

151 Quick Ideas to Manage Your Time (a $12.99 value) FREE for a limited time!

Too many of us live our lives trying to shoehorn our many activities and responsibilities into too few time slots available. Increasingly for business people, fathers and mothers, even kids, (ineffectively) managing the myriad of activities has become an all-consuming chore. And we’re so stressed that our relationships and job performance suffer. But we can solve these problems. These tried and tested ideas work! And now they are available to you. Select those that fit your particular circumstance and try them out!

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: 151 Quick Ideas to Manage Your Time (a .99 value) FREE for a limited time!

Source: News from HR Morning

Health reform: A look at 5 major requirements still to come

Health reform: A look at 5 major requirements still to come

Healthcare reform, Obamacare

The employer mandate has officially kicked in, but it’s far from the last healthcare reform requirement employers have to worry about. 

There are several mandates still on the horizon. And since it doesn’t appear likely the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going anywhere anytime soon (despite what Republicans in Congress would like to happen), it would behoove your organization to start the prep work now.

The health reform legal experts Carrie Byrnes and Serena Yee at the law firm Bryan Cave LLP recently highlighted the five requirements employers should be most concerned with.

They are:

  • Reporting requirements. This is the first year for which employers will have to report information to the IRS on the the types of health coverage offered to employees, and to whom it’s offered. The reporting won’t be due until the first quarter of 2016, but employers covered by the ACA’s employer mandate are required to compile monthly data for their year-end reporting. So while the info’s not due yet, employers for which the requirements apply should’ve started collecting it by now.
  • Nondiscrimination rules. At some point, the feds will issue their health reform nondscrimination rules that are supposed to prevent health plans from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees. The goal is to prevent plans from offering highly paid individuals benefits not open to lesser-paid workers. The problem is, however, the feds appear to be having difficulty producing the rules. The feds have been teasing them for years, but so far nothing’s come of it. But stay tuned, they’re coming.
  • Cadillac tax. When the ACA was enacted in 2010, the “Cadillac tax” was an afterthought for some companies because it wasn’t going to kick in for eight years. But now, we’re just three years away from 2018, when employers will have to pay a 40% excise tax on the value of any healthcare coverage that exceeds $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for family coverage. Employers should be looking at their insurance trends now to see if they’re likely to hit this threshold and determine if they want to make changes to avoid the tax.
  • Automatic enrollment. Employers with more than 200 full-time employees will have to automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of their employer-sponsored health plans — as well as re-enroll those already receiving benefits — once the regulations regarding this requirement are issued (employees will be given the option to opt-out). But, as with the nondiscrimination rules, the feds appear to be having trouble producing them. The regs were expected in 2014, but they never came. Still, if you’ve got more than 200 employees, gear up for this requirement to become a reality shortly.
  • Minimum value rules. Under the ACA, employer-sponsored health coverage must provide “minimum value” for the employer not to be hit with penalties. But plans only have the proposed minimum value rules to work off of. The final rules have yet to be published. These rules were expected to be issued within the first two months of 2015, but we’re still waiting. It’s possible they may require changes to your plan to avoid future penalties.

For more HR News, please visit: Health reform: A look at 5 major requirements still to come

Source: News from HR Morning

You can fire a driver if he’s an alcoholic, right? You won’t like the answer

It’s getting harder to fire workers — at least legally — these days. Here’s the latest example: 

A driver for Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. reported to the company under its “Open Door Policy” that he was an alcoholic. He was looking for assistance with his alcoholism.

Naturally, DOT regulations state the man shouldn’t have been driving a truck. So Old Dominion took him off the road. And in what it called an act of “accommodation,” it offered him a part-time dock position at half his previous pay. Under this new position, the driver also lost his health benefits.

Unhappy with this new arraignment, the man took his case to the EEOC, which sued Old Dominion on his behalf. It claimed the company failed to fulfill its obligations to provide him with a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Devil’s advocate

Let’s take a step back for a moment for us to play devil’s advocate. While, there’s no real way to tell from the court documents or the EEOC’s press release on the lawsuit what the company’s intentions were, it’s possible the company had the employees best interest in mind.

Looking at it in a light most favorable to the employer, here’s what potentially happened: It hired a guy to drive a truck. That driver then had to be stripped of his license because of his alcoholism (clearly the right call, no matter how you look at it). But rather than leaving the guy out in the cold and firing him, it decided to keep him on board in what was, admittedly, a much lower position.

If the company was hell-bent on punishing the guy for being an alcoholic, it stands to reason it would’ve just fired him outright. But it didn’t. It moved him to a job he wasn’t hired to perform in the first place.

Still — and here’s the tough pill for employer to swallow — even showing some compassion for the guy (again, it’s hard to say what the company’s true intentions were) wasn’t good enough to satisfy the ADA, and it certainly wasn’t good enough to satisfy the EEOC.

What the law says

Old Dominion, according to the ADA, was technically required to do more. The ADA says employers have to at least explore reasonable accommodations that allow workers to perform the essential functions of their jobs — or that help them get back to performing those functions.

Permanently stripping the driver of his license violated this part of the ADA, according to the EEOC. A jury later agreed and awarded the driver $119,612.

According to the EEOC, here’s what Old Dominion could’ve done to avoid this costly mess:

“… the ADA requires that Old Dominion make an individualized determination as to whether the driver could return to driving and provide a reasonable accommodation of leave to its drivers for them to obtain treatment.”

In other words, it appears the EEOC would’ve been cool with Old Dominion granting the driver a leave of absence to seek treatment for his alcoholism. Then, assuming he overcame this disability, the EEOC would’ve liked to have seen Old Dominion consider giving him his license back.

It’s pretty complicated

While you can certainly understand the EEOC’s line of thinking in this case, it can’t sit well with employers tasked with complying with the ADA.

Sure, you want to be compassionate, but verdicts like this make it awfully complicated to figure out what to do with employees who develop disabilities that may make them dangerous on the job.

The bottom line: Before taking any action against an employee for problems that may be brought on because of a disability, explore any and all accommodations that could reasonably be made — up to and including leave for medical treatment — that could help the employee go back to performing the essential functions of his or her job. That’s the only sure-fire way to steer clear of ADA issues and the EEOC cops that are out there watching.

For more HR News, please visit: You can fire a driver if he’s an alcoholic, right? You won’t like the answer

Source: News from HR Morning

How does your organization deal with issue of employee bullying?

Bullying — both inside the workplace and out — is an issue that’s been getting greater attention over the past several years. So what role should HR be playing in the effort to stamp out this kind of behavior?

A recent poll from Workplace Options and the Tyler Clementi Foundation showed:

  • 50% of respondents have experienced or witnessed bullying in their workplace.
  • More minority respondents (75% of Hispanics; 74% of African-Americans) than white respondents (60%) believed that bullying is a more serious problem for youth today than in the past.
  • Bullying is largely seen as a “not in my backyard” issue – 64% of respondents believe bullying is more of a problem today than in the past, but just 12% believe it is a serious problem for youth in their own county.

So what should companies be doing about it?

What does bullying look like?

One of the major issues with workplace bullying: It’s not always easy to recognize.

A lot of bullying involves teasing and banter, but it’s a stretch to say that all teasing and banter qualify as bullying.

Dennis A. Davis, national director of client training at Ogletree Deakins, says managers and HR pros should look out for three subtle signs of bullying:

  • the teasing isn’t reciprocal – i.e. the person receiving it doesn’t return the banter
  • the behavior is targeted – certain employees are always the ones on the receiving end, and
  • it’s personal – the teasing is about a staffer’s weakness, deficiency or inferiority.

How to deal with an offender

Spotting workplace bullying can be difficult. Getting it to stop might be even harder.

Christine Comaford, writing for Forbes, has outlined a six-step plan for a conversation managers must have with workplace bullies:

  • Set the stage. Managers should explain why the meeting’s been called and the outcome they want to achieve
  • Lay out the observable behavior. It’s crucial that managers describe specific instances where the bully acted out or said something inappropriate
  • Describe the impact. Bullies likely don’t understand the damage their behaviors are doing to both their co-workers and the company
  • See if the bully agrees with you. Does the bully now see the problem and acknowledge it needs to stop?
  • Create a plan. Work out a set period of time (maybe 30 to 60 days) where the manager will meet with the worker once a week to check on progress. The key here: Be specific. Managers should be clear on which behaviors need to stop. Also, supervisors must state the consequences if a turnaround doesn’t occur.
  • Make sure you’re on the same page. Does the bully understand everything? Also, managers should make it clear they want the bully to succeed and continue the working relationship.

What to do moving forward

Congratulations: You’ve stopped one workplace bully.

But is there something HR can do to try to prevent workplace bullying before it even starts?

Jon Hyman, writing for the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, suggests one thing: Treat bullying like it’s illegal.

What does that look like?

  • Add bullying to anti-harassment and workplace conduct policies
  • Tell staffers you don’t allow bullying, and train them on how they can report incidents of bullying.
  • Immediately investigate reports of workplace bullying, and
  • After an investigation, take corrective action to ensure the bullying doesn’t happen again.

The ‘bystander dilemma’

The Workplace Options/Tyler Clementi poll also found that bullying is more of a problem for young Americans today than ever before – and that parents are seriously conflicted when it comes to teaching kids how to appropriately respond.

Respondents were split on how to teach kids to best handle bullying situations that involved either online or in-person threats. The results:

  • 53% of respondents said children should be taught to notify an authority figure when faced with bullying.
  • 24% said direct confrontation was the best response.
  • Males (31%) were much more likely to recommend direct confrontation than females (13%).
  • And eight percent said ignoring the problem was the best way to handle bullying.

Handling bullying, whether in the workplace or on the playground, isn’t easy. In a youth bullying scenario, the poll says when family is not involved, most adults are keen to turn a blind eye — thus, the “bystander dilemma”:

  • 69% of respondents said they would intervene if a bullying situation involved a family member or someone they personally know.
  • But just 44% said they would intervene if they saw a scenario that did not involve a personal acquaintance.

We’re afraid a similar response is likely in the workplace setting — if a witness to bullying behavior doesn’t have a personal stake in changing the dynamic, they probably will be reticent about bringing a complaint to management.

For more HR News, please visit: How does your organization deal with issue of employee bullying?

Source: News from HR Morning

FMLA: This company relied on the doctor’s cert, and still lost in court

HR pros often have to rely on physicians’ opinions to make difficult FMLA administration decisions. But what happens when a physician changes his story?  

That question was at the center of Kossowski v. City of Naples. In this case, Kossowski went to see a doctor after having “respiratory problems.” During the visit, Kossowski was diagnosed with bronchitis and prescribed a Z-Pak of antibiotics and some cough syrup.

Following the appointment, Kossowski called in sick and requested FMLA leave. At this point, the company followed standard procedure and asked Kossowski to fill out a certification about his serious health condition.

After not going to work for several days, Kossowski went to his doctor’s to get his FMLA documents filled out. His doctor filled out the certification, noting that he’d treated Kossowski once for his condition.

Based on that certification, the company determined that Kossowski’s bronchitis wasn’t actually a “serious medical condition” for FMLA purposes and eventually terminated him.

Kossowski responded with an FMLA interference lawsuit.

What the court said

Based on the wording of the actual FMLA regs, the company probably thought it was justified in its decision.

To be considered a serious medical condition for FMLA purposes, the condition must either require “inpatient care” or “continuing treatment by a health care provider.”

Because Kossowski’s condition didn’t require inpatient care, he needed to prove that his bronchitis required continued treatment, which the FMLA defines as:

Treatment two or more times, within 30 days of the first day of incapacity, unless extenuating circumstances exist, by a health care provider, by a nurse under direct supervision of a health care provider, or by a provider of health care services (e.g., physical therapist) under orders of, or on referral by, a health care provider.

Since his doctor stated that he only treated Kossowski once, he clearly wasn’t eligible for FMLA … or so the company thought.

Conflicting statements

But here’s where things got tricky. In court, Kossowski’s doctor contradicted what he wrote on the certification form and stated that he’d actually treated the patient twice: Once when Kossowski was first diagnosed and given a Z-Pack and some cough syrup — and again when he filled out the certification.

And that was all it took for the court to deny summary judgment for the company. Because of the conflicting evidence about how many times Kossowski was actually treated, the court said “that the inference arising from these facts may differ” for FMLA eligibility purposes.

Now the company is facing a drawn out lawsuit or an expensive settlement.

Letter of law vs. common sense

On the surface, this ruling is extremely troubling for employers. After all, this company was simply responding to the details a healthcare provider filled out in an official FMLA certification. Should this firm really be punished for the doctor’s inconsistent statements?

But there’s another way of looking at this. The company didn’t have to terminate the employee — an employee who clearly had an illness that required a few days off — even though he wasn’t eligible for FMLA leave.

Had Kossowski’s employer been a bit more lenient, it likely would’ve avoided this whole mess altogether.

For more HR News, please visit: FMLA: This company relied on the doctor’s cert, and still lost in court

Source: News from HR Morning

Work Naked: 8 Essential Principles for Peak Performance in the Virtual Workplace

Corporate and individual resistance to new ways of working are often imbedded within a company’s culture, and can stifle change and hinder productivity. Cindy Froggatt suggests workplace options that can help balance work and personal life, and helps managers address the needs of the many knowledge workers who require a greater degree of autonomy to perform, create, and innovate. She presents numerous examples of companies of different sizes and types that have instituted telework or alternative programs, and clearly explains the benefits and pitfalls of implementing them.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Work Naked: 8 Essential Principles for Peak Performance in the Virtual Workplace

Source: News from HR Morning