The most irritating personality in the workplace

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News
The most irritating personality in the workplace

most irritating person

If there’s one species of employee managers dread dealing with, it’s the prima donna. Here’s a look at what makes these people tick — and how they can be stopped.

Prima donnas are likely the most irritating people in the workforce.

They preen, they posture, they bully, they make outrageous demands. And much of the time, those demands are met.

The hardest part is, they’re often the company’s top performers.

Of course they are. How else could anybody justify keeping them around for so long, alienating staff and creating chronic headaches?

Some examples of the breed

Prima donnas come in all shapes, sizes, personality types and degrees of quirkiness.

A sample:

  • Joe (or Josephine) Cool. These folks are urbane, confident, knowledgeable – and never miss a chance to point it out to co-workers or superiors.
  • Vincent (or Vivian) Van Gogh. Soooo creative, these people can’t possibly be expected to follow the rules of the drones that surround them.
  • The Founding Father (or Mother). These are the folks who’ve been around forever – through the good times and the bad. They’re the main repository of institutional memory. Problem is, they think they’ve paid their dues – and don’t have to produce like they used to.
  • Conan (or Connie) the Barbarian. The office bully. The living, breathing rebuttal to the idea that when employees are treated with respect, they’re more productive. Sure, everybody in the department is miserable. But the results speak for themselves, right?

Personality traits

Regardless of which category they fall into, all prima donnas have two things in common: They’re not team players and they’re obsessed with themselves.

And almost universally, they’re nowhere near as self-confident as they want people to think.

Nine times out of 10, the corporate shrinks say, under that bluster lies an unusually weak ego.

Therein lies a blueprint for dealing with these folks.

Two-phase plan

Phase I: It’s a team issue. This is the tough love part of the process. Managers must make it clear that cooperating with co-workers and being part of a collegial atmosphere isn’t an optional exercise. It’s required.

That means every employee – even the highest performer – is expected to treat colleagues with courtesy and respect.

What incentive do prima donnas have to follow the team guidelines?

Some companies make it part of the compensation package. When a change in behavior means money in the pocket, prima donnas tend to pay attention to the rules.

Phase II: Prima donnas need to feed their egos.

That’s a double-edged sword. Giant egos can, no question, be destructive – but they can also be steered toward a positive outcome.

Example: Some companies co-opt prima donnas by making them key players in mentoring programs, where they can spout off about their accomplishments while teaching the business to younger workers.

Others find success by assigning the prima donna an important new initiative – such as a key market research project or a special campaign to land a crucial customer – something that won’t require a lot of interaction with co-workers.

The final decision

Are they worth keeping? No question, prima donnas are often valuable to companies. Start-ups especially benefit from the high-powered energy that prima donnas can bring to the table.

But there are times that these employees are simply more trouble than they’re worth. And then management has a critical decision to make.

There’s an old saying that goes, “The cemetery is full of indispensable people.” That sort of puts it in perspective.

Often, jettisoning the top-performing prima donna is a lot less painful than companies fear it’s going to be. Others step up to fill the vacuum, and morale gets a boost.

Adapted from the PBP Executive Report, The 7 Most Disruptive Workplace Issues — and How to Handle Them.  For further information, go here.



For more HR News, please visit: The most irritating personality in the workplace

Source: News from HR Morning

Now your office thermostat setting may be discriminatory

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

In HR, we’re constantly preaching that everyone should be treated equally. So why, then, are women constantly freezing in the office wearing parkas and Snuggies, while men can relax in polo shirts? 

It’s because some employers’ thermostat settings may unintentionally be biased toward males.

Now you may be asking: We make everyone work in the same facility, at the same temperature. How can that be bias?

Here’s how: Many building thermostats follow a “thermal comfort model that was developed in the 1960s,” and one of the variables used in their thermal comfort equation is the resting metabolic rate (how fast we generate heat) of a 40-year-old man weighing roughly 154 pounds.

Translation: Office temperature calculations are often geared more toward suiting men’s bodies than women’s.

That was one of the conclusions of a climate change study conducted by two scientists from the Netherlands, Boris Kingma, a postdoctoral researcher of thermal biophysics and health at Maastricht University and Eindhoven University of Technology, and Dr. Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt, a professor of Ecological energetics and health at Maastricht University.

The study was just published in the journal Nature Climate Change, and it recommends that buildings “reduce gender-discriminating bias in thermal comfort.”

How? The study’s authors recommend changing the comfort formula to include the metabolic rates of women and men. They say there may be a five degree temperature difference between the optimal temperature for most women and that of most men.

But, of course, you’re not doing complex math calculations when you turn on the A/C in the summer. So should you just crank up the temperature a few degrees?

Dress is the issue as well

That would probably make the study’s authors happy, as higher office temperatures in the summer would help combat excess energy usage and, thus, combat global warming.

But a few degrees likely won’t completely solve the problem in your office.

That’s because men’s and women’s wardrobes are contributing to the problem. Women tend to wear cooler clothing — skirts, lower-collared shirts and open-toed shoes — while men, on the other hand, war warmer clothing — pants, shirts and ties, and closed-toed shoes.

As a result, the best thing to do may be to combine a higher office temperature with a looser dress code.

Some suggestions (not included in the study):

  • Poll workers to see how many of them are too cold (or too hot) in your office, and try to find some middle ground, and
  • Adjust dress codes to help employees cope with the conditions — e.g., by adopting a more business casual approach, or by letting men wear shorts if you’re raising the temp in the room and/or recommending that women wear longer pants and heavier tops if you’re keeping the temp low.

In the end, the reality you’ll probably have to face is that you won’t be able to make everyone happy — at least temperature wise. But you may be able to make everyone a little less unhappy.



For more HR News, please visit: Now your office thermostat setting may be discriminatory

Source: News from HR Morning

Obama drafts Executive Order on paid sick leave: Who it’ll affect

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

Executive Orders are becoming the hallmark of President Obama’s second term. His latest seeks to provide workers with paid sick leave. But it won’t affect all employers? 

The latest order, which the DOL is currently reviewing, would require federal contractors and subcontractors to provide their employees with a minimum of 56 hours (seven days) of paid sick leave annually.

Workers could use the leave for their own illness or to take care of sick relatives.

Some of the other notable Executive Orders of Obama’s second term as president include:

  • The order to rewrite the FLSA’s “white collar” overtime exemptions (for which the proposed rules just came out)
  • The order for federal contractors to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and
  • The “Fair Pay” order requiring federal contractors to report whether they’ve violated any one of 14 labor laws within the past three years.

Executive Orders allow the administration to impose regulations without Congressional action.

The paid sick leave order is part of a larger nationwide trend of states (like Connecticut, California Massachusetts and Oregon) and cities (Seattle, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and others) adopting paid sick leave requirements.

Paid sick leave is something President Obama has been very clear on: “Send me a bill that gives every worker in America the opportunity to earn seven days of paid sick leave. It’s the right thing to do.”

Under the new Executive Order, employers that do business with the government would also be required to allow unused paid leave to accrue year after year, according to The New York Times, which obtained a draft of the order.

Some other important notes about the order:

  • An employer can’t make taking paid leave contingent upon a worker finding a replacement
  • The final regulations would consider a relative any individual “related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is equivalent of a family relationship”
  • Leave could also be used to seek medical attention, as well as counseling and legal action relating to domestic violence and sexual assault, and
  • Detailed regulations will be issued by Sept. 30, 2016.

The Executive Order comes on the heels of the DOL releasing data that showed 39% of private sector employees have no paid sick leave.



For more HR News, please visit: Obama drafts Executive Order on paid sick leave: Who it’ll affect

Source: News from HR Morning

Benefits alliance braces for fight against ‘Cadillac tax’

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

We’ve already seen legislation introduced with the sole purpose of getting Obamacare’s controversial “Cadillac tax” tossed. Now an impressive alliance has come together to put pressure on Congress to make sure that repeal actually takes place.  

The group, which consists of more than two dozen public and private employers, insurers and unions, calls itself the Alliance to Fight the 40, a reference to the 40% excise tax imposed by the ACA.

Under the ACA’s Cadillac tax provision, employers will be required to pay a 40% excise tax on the value of any healthcare coverage that exceeds $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for families in premium costs starting in 2018.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act back in 2010, the Cadillac tax has been one of the most worrisome provisions for employers — and with good reason. Research has shown that a significant number of firms are on pace to trigger the tax in 2018.

For the feds, however, the excise tax is expected to be a major revenue generator. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Cadillac tax will raise $87 billion in the decade after it takes effect. The feds then plan on using this money to fund other key parts of the ACA — e.g., the subsidies for low- and middle-income families on the insurance marketplace.

‘Hits ordinary plans’

The repeal of the excise tax seems to be one of the few components of the healthcare reform law where everybody — Democrats and Republicans, public and private employers, etc. — seems to be on the same page: staunchly opposed to the provision taking effect.

As James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council and a member of the Alliance to Fight the 40, put it:

“The 40% tax hits ordinary plans that are expensive simply because they cover many people with high health costs — women, older and disabled workers and families with catastrophic health events.”

It’s also worth noting that many experts believe the repeal of the Cadillac tax is all but inevitable. Example: During “How to Promote a Healthy Workforce Under the ACA Without Breaking the Bank,” a presentation at the 2015 SHRM Conference & Exposition that HR Benefits Alert attended, employment attorney Mark Boxer said he believed there was about an 80% chance the Cadillac tax would be repealed before 2018.



For more HR News, please visit: Benefits alliance braces for fight against ‘Cadillac tax’

Source: News from HR Morning

Threatening to blow off supervisor’s head: Covered under the ADA?

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News
Threatening to blow off supervisor’s head: Covered under the ADA?

discrimination, guns at work

A man fired for making “extreme” threats to kill his supervisor sues, claiming he was a disabled individual protected by the ADA. A federal court ruled he may indeed have been disabled, but … 

… that didn’t necessarily mean his job was protected by the ADA.

Planned ‘to take out management’

Timothy Mayo was a welder for Oregon-based PCC Structurals, a superalloy, aluminum and titanium casting company. He suffered from major depressive disorder. Medication and treatment allowed him to work without significant incident for several years — until a supervisor started getting under his skin.

Mayo and a few of his co-workers began having issues with a supervisor who they claimed bullied them and made work life miserable.

Mayo and the workers met with HR to discuss the situation. Shortly after the meeting, Mayo made threatening comments to — but not directed at — some of his co-workers.

Examples pulled from court documents:

  • He said he “fe[lt] like coming down with a shotgun an[d] blowing off” the heads of the supervisor and another manager.
  • He told another worker he planned to “com[e] down on day [shift] to take out management.”
  • He then explained that “all that [he] would have to do to shoot [the supervisor] is show up at 1:30 in the afternoon” because “that’s when all the supervisors would have their walk-through.”

Mayo’s co-workers reported these threats to management, which confronted him about them.

Asked if he’d carry out his threats, Mayo said “he couldn’t guarantee he wouldn’t do that.”

Mayo was then suspended and barred from company property. PCC also notified the police.

When a police officer visited Mayo at his home, Mayo admitted to making the threats. Then he elaborated that he had two or three people in mind, including his supervisor.

Asked if he’d follow through on his threats, Mayo responded, “Not tonight.”

With Mayo’s consent, the officer took him to a hospital where he was placed into custody.

FMLA leave

Mayo was in custody for six days due to the danger he posed to himself and others. He then took medical leave under the FMLA and Oregon Family Leave Act for two months.

Toward the end of his leave, a psychologist cleared Mayo to return to work, but recommended he get a new supervisor. Shortly after, he was terminated.

Mayo then sued PCC, claiming disability discrimination under Oregon’s counterpart to the ADA. He said his threats were caused by his disability, and since he was fired because of his threats, he was essentially fired because he was disabled.

The case went before a federal district court, which granted summary judgment to PCC, dismissing Mayo’s case.

‘May be disabled, but …’

Mayo appealed, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal.

In court, Mayo argued that he was a protected individual under the ADA.

But to be protected, the court said Mayo had to show that he:

  • suffered from a disability under the ADA
  • is an ADA qualified individual, and
  • he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.

The court ruled that Mayo may have been disabled under the ADA — but it ruled he wasn’t qualified for ADA protections because he couldn’t perform essential functions of his job, with or without an accommodation.

The essential functions he couldn’t perform: handling stress and interacting with others.

It said:

“Even if Mayo were disabled (which we assume for this appeal), he cannot show that he was qualified at the time of his discharge. An essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others. …

“And while an employee can be qualified despite adverse reactions to stress, he is not qualified when that stress leads him to threaten to kill his co-workers in chilling detail and on multiple occasions. …

“The Act does not require an employer to retain a potentially violent employee. Such a requirement would place the employer on a razor’s edge — in jeopardy of violating the Act if it fired such an employee, yet in jeopardy of being deemed negligent if it retained him and he hurt someone. The Act protects only “qualified” employees, that is, employees qualified to do the job for which they were hired; and threatening other employees disqualifies one. …

“While the ADA and Oregon disability law protect important individual rights, they do not require employers to play dice with the lives of their workforce. We thus conclude that PCC’s actions in this case were lawful.”

Mayo claimed that a reasonable accommodation would have been to assign him another supervisor, but the court said another disturbing incident may have occurred if he had returned to PCC and faced similarly stressful conditions.

In a nutshell: PCC couldn’t provide Mayo with a reasonable accommodation that would allow him to perform all of the essential functions of his job.

Case dismissed.

Frustration, jokes don’t disqualify individuals

In a footnote to its ruling, the court stressed that this case was riddled with “extreme facts” — i.e., serious, credible threats of violence toward co-workers. That helped make the issue somewhat black and white — PCC had to let Mayo go or risk being accused of negligence if he did hurt someone.

The court inferred that not all cases will be as cut and dried, and it warned employers that “off-handed expressions of frustration or inappropriate jokes wouldn’t necessarily render an individual non qualified” for ADA protections.

Translation: In most cases it’s wise for employers to enter the interactive process and seek out reasonable accommodations if a worker’s grumblings don’t amount to direct threats.

Cite: Mayo v. PCC Structurals Inc.



For more HR News, please visit: Threatening to blow off supervisor’s head: Covered under the ADA?

Source: News from HR Morning

10 ‘little white lies’ your managers tell employees

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

Of course, no manager wants to lie. But sometimes it’s a way to deflect requests or get off the hook without having to let a co-worker down harshly. Which “white lies” are your managers, supervisors and even executives spreading? 

We recently stumbled upon this interesting list produced by our friends over at ResourcefulManager, and we had to share it.

The team over at ResorucefulManager shares advice and resources on how to become a stronger leader, and it recently polled 1,133 managers and executives regarding which “white lies” they tell.

Respondents could select from a list of 33 total “lies.”

Here were the 10 they selected the most:

Source: Top 10 White Lies Managers Tell from John Walston, ResourcefulManager-in-Chief.



For more HR News, please visit: 10 ‘little white lies’ your managers tell employees

Source: News from HR Morning

Paternity leave: Will everybody eventually offer it?

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

Employees have long been clamoring for more generous paternity leave, and both Netflix and Microsoft have recently heeded that call. Will this trend trickle down to companies like yours?  

Netflix, the video streaming and delivery service provider, made news recently when it announced it would offer an unlimited amount of paid time off for its employees when they become new parents. The policy applies to both new mothers and new fathers.

Chief Talent Officer Tawni Cranz explained the impetus for the policy in a blog post by stating:

“Netflix’s continued success hinges on us competing for and keeping the most talented individuals in their field. Experience shows people perform better at work when they’re not worrying about home.”

Soon after Netflix’s announcement, tech giant Microsoft announced it will also expand its parental leave offerings, albeit not in an unlimited way.

Microsoft’s new leave policy extends paid parental leave to 12 weeks for new mothers and fathers, while mothers can also get an additional eight weeks of paid leave.

Under Microsoft’s previous leave policy, mothers were entitled to 12 weeks of paid and eight weeks of unpaid leave, and fathers could take up to four weeks of paid time off and eight weeks of unpaid leave.

Netflix and Microsoft join the ranks of other major corporations that offer leave policies that greatly exceed the standard amount, such as:

  • Facebook (four months of paid leave for both mothers and fathers)
  • Google (18 weeks), and
  • Apple (mothers get a total of 18 weeks — four weeks before birth and 14 weeks after — and fathers get six weeks).

89% factor leave into job decisions

While average companies probably can’t afford to offer such generous paternity leave, the call for increased leave time is growing — particularly among new dads.

In fact, a recent study of working fathers by the Boston College Center for Work & Family found that:

  • 89% said they took paid paternity leave (PPL) into consideration when deciding whether or not to take a job.
  • Of those, 60% rated access to paid paternity leave as very/extremely important.
  • 99% said employers should offer paid paternity leave, with 74% suggesting that two to four weeks is an appropriate amount.
  • Three-quarters of fathers said they’d prefer PPL time flexibility so they wouldn’t have to use it all right after the baby was born; most see it as part of the life-work balance they seek when selecting an employer.



For more HR News, please visit: Paternity leave: Will everybody eventually offer it?

Source: News from HR Morning

A quick checklist for hiring in the social space

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

If you still think of Facebook and Twitter as purely the domain of humble brags and dinner photos, it’s time to rethink your strategy. Here are five ways HR can improve its talent acquisition process through social media, courtesy of guest poster Anand Deshpande.  

Here’s a rundown of Deshpande’s overall strategy:

Target your search

More than 2.55 billion people will use social networking by the year 2017, according to some reports. Abut while a recruiter’s aim may be to cast a bigger net through social media, there is a point of diminishing returns. Failure to target your search can be a drain on time and resources. Instead, aim your social media efforts directly at the best candidates. While large social networks like LinkedIn and Facebook may put you in touch with massive pools of candidates, industry-specific websites, blogs, and forums deliver a relevant, captive audience.

Use a multi-channel approach

While targeting your audience through social media is important, refrain from limiting or restricting the channels through which you reach out. Research shows that the average job seeker uses a whopping 15 sources during a single job hunt. Recruiters who engage candidates across the comprehensive spectrum of touchpoints can expect more comprehensive results.

Use what you’ve got

Your employees are your strongest assets. Failure to leverage their social network connections for job applicants can result in missed opportunities. Internal recommendations can help you locate employees who will not only possess the right skills, but are also more likely to be a solid fit for your company culture. Encouraging your employees to post about job openings on their own pages simultaneously widens and narrows your reach.

Follow the Golden Rule

Today’s job applicants not only have access to more information — they also have louder voices than ever before. Employees who have a bad experience during the job hunt are likely to share this information via social media. It’s particularly important, therefore, for recruiters to keep the applicant experience in mind at all times. This means a commitment to transparency, communication and follow-through along every step of the recruitment process.

Build your brand

Your social media strategies are an essential part of selling your brand to both active and passive job seekers — particularly at a time when 77% of all full-time workers are open to new job opportunities. Social media isn’t just useful for getting your job openings in front of candidates; it’s also useful for positioning your company as a sought after employer. Ultimately, you’re not just building your brand; you’re also building relationships.

And remember: just as you’re vetting candidates via social media, they’re also vetting you. An uneven, poor, or absent social media presence can remove you from the running. Consistent, comprehensive and compelling communication is more important than ever in the brave new world of social media recruiting.

Anand Deshpande is customer success manager with WittyParrot, a cloud-based SaaS company focused on communication and content collaboration with analytics among sales, marketing and customer support functions.



For more HR News, please visit: A quick checklist for hiring in the social space

Source: News from HR Morning

Are Traditional HR Practices Keeping You from Achieving More?

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

New research from the IBM Smarter Workforce Institute reveals insights into high potential employees, including what attracts them and how they differ from other employees in terms of employee engagement, job satisfaction, innovation and collaboration. This analysis presents evidence the potential value of moving away from traditional HR practices and moving towards a high potential, workforce science approach.

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: Are Traditional HR Practices Keeping You from Achieving More?

Source: News from HR Morning

DOL forcing everyone to change remote work policies: Pitfalls to avoid

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News
DOL forcing everyone to change remote work policies: Pitfalls to avoid

DOL rules

If the DOL’s new overtime regs go through as written — and there’s every indication to believe they will — employers of all stripes will have much more than just classification issues to contend with.

The passage of the regs will add to a perfect storm of events that has made employers everywhere prime targets for pay lawsuits and government fines.

HR Morning recently attended the SHRM Conference & Exposition in Las Vegas, and sat in on attorney Christine D. Hanley’s sobering presentation, “Working Remotely, Connectivity and the FLSA: The New Bermuda Triangle.”

A dangerous ‘triangle’

Hanley described the “triangle” formed by remote work, 24/7 online connectivity and the FLSA — and how that triangle is forcing employers into “uncharted territory” that can easily lead to DOL scrutiny and pay lawsuits exacerbated by overzealous attorneys.

Because of tech advancements, hourly, non-exempt employees are now working in positions where tasks can be performed remotely. This makes tracking workers’ time a daunting challenge for employers.

Hanley’s presentation came just one day before the DOL released its proposed changes to the FLSA’s overtime regs. But rather than diminishing what was covered in her presentation, the DOL’s move has made Hanley’s warning even more urgent.

Reason: With the DOL’s salary threshold for exempt status jumping to $50,440, some five million additional workers are expected to move into the non-exempt classification category that Hanley sees causing so many problems.

Laptops, smartphones and tablets

Connecting to the workplace online has become so simple that many increasingly do so with their laptops, smartphones and tablets. This can create costly liability when it begins to involve hourly, non-exempt employees.

One position Hanley spoke about was that of an office assistant. While that position previously consisted solely of filing hard-copy materials in filing cabinets right in the office, that job has changed drastically.

With more companies relying on online file storage, these tasks can generally be complete whenever and wherever a staffer pleases. And if employers don’t have a system in place to either prevent someone from putting in overtime hours or accurately track those hours, they’re inviting problems.

As HR pros are well aware, FLSA lawsuits have been skyrocketing in recent years. For attorneys, pay lawsuits are a very lucrative proposition. Hanley reminded employers that the FLSA lawsuit trend is at least in part due to “the prevailing plaintiff fee scheme,” where guilty companies must pay the winning employee/employees’ improperly denied OT as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs.

5 key questions

So what should you do to safeguard your firm from problems?

For starters, a lot is riding on your managers. Employers need to be able to rely on managers and supervisors to control their staff and make sure non-exempt employees are clear about when they’re expected to work and when they must stop.

Hanley offered a few key questions designed to determine if employers are unwittingly leaving themselves open to OT issues, as well as help employers put controls in place to ensure staffers are only working when they’re supposed to. These include:

  • Who’s doing what for whom (exempt or non-exempt staffers)?
  • What are they doing (the business purpose of the tasks)?
  • How are they doing it (connectivity)?
  • Where are they doing it (remote working)?
  • When are they doing it (FLSA and overtime)?

In addition to answering these questions, Hanley also urged firms to “know when employees are working, and control their worktime.” To do this, managers and supervisors may have to regularly remind non-exempt employees not to check work-related email outside of their shifts and to limit their access to connectivity tools that offer access to the workplace after hours.

Then, there’s the documenting. Documentation is paramount to preventing FLSA issues. Employers must be meticulous when it comes to tracking and recording workers’ time. As Hanley pointed out, workers know how many hours they’re putting in and the “… the DOL has an online app that employees can use to track their own time.”

Finally, Hanley said the following two documents are critical for employers that rely on remote work:

1. A Statement of Understanding. This documents spells out exactly where, when, why and how remote work is to be completed, and employees sign off on their understanding of and agreement with the document.

2. A safe harbor policy. This says that if the company inadvertently fails to pay a non-exempt employee correctly, that worker must let the employer know about the oversight.



For more HR News, please visit: DOL forcing everyone to change remote work policies: Pitfalls to avoid

Source: News from HR Morning