SALES & MARKETING MANAGER, Page 13 Tag

A 330,000-employee corporation just decided to scrap yearly performance reviews. Think it might be time for your organization to do the same?  

Pierre Nanterme, CEO of consulting giant Accenture, recently told the Washington Post, “We’re going to get rid of [annual reviews]. Not 100 percent, but we’re going to get rid of probably 90% of what we did in the past. It’s not what we need. We are not sure that spending all that time on performance management has been yielding a great outcome.”

The problem with the old process? “Performance is an ongoing activity,” Nanterme said. “It’s every day, after any client interaction or business interaction or corporate interaction. It’s much more fluid.

“People want to know on an ongoing basis, am I doing right? Am I moving in the right direction? Do you think I’m progressing? Nobody’s going to wait for an annual cycle to get that feedback. Now it’s all about instant performance management.”

He said that “[F]or the millennium generation, it’s not the way they want to be recognized, the way they want to be measured. If you put this new generation in the box of the performance management we’ve used the last 30 years, you lose them.”

‘We’re done with that’

So how’s the new program going to work? “At the end of the day, you need to give some evaluation. You need to give a compensation increase,” said Nanterme. “But all this terminology of rankings — forcing rankings along some distribution curve or whatever — we’re done with that.

“We’re going to evaluate you in your role, not vis-a-vis someone else who might work in Washington, who might work in Bangalore. It’s irrelevant. It should be about you. How are you performing now, and do we believe you are prepared to move to another role? We are getting rid of all this comparison with other people.

“My philosophy has always been very simple: You need to be relevant to your clients, not the other way around. It’s the same thing with your people. You need to be relevant to them. I’m not going to impose on the millennial generation something that is not the environment in which they want to develop and grow.

“It doesn’t mean we’re going to be easy—that we’re not going to measure, to evaluate. We’re going to do all of this, but we’re going to do it in a very different way.”

A shift in focus

Accenture isn’t the first mega-employer to change its performance review philosophy. According to the Post, Microsoft did away with its rankings nearly two years ago. Adobe, Gap and Medtronic have also transformed their review process.

The consulting and accounting giant Deloitte recently announced a new program in which rankings would disappear and the evaluation process would progress over the year, the Post story said. Deloitte is also experimenting with using only four simple questions in its reviews — two of which simply require yes or no answers.

Is this trend going to catch on in small- and mid-sized firms? If you’ve made changes to your performance evaluation process, tell us about it in the Comments section below.

 

 

There are a lot of employees who are stuck in a mindset that makes it hard — or nearly impossible — for them to accept new challenges. And that, as you know, is bad for running a business. 

It’s not all their fault; genetics plays a big role. But research has shown there are two words that can shake them from this mindset:

“Good effort.”

Let us explain.

Pope Ward, senior VP at Melcrum, a business communication consultancy, recently stumbled upon some interesting research conducted by Standford professor Carol Dweck.

Dweck is a renown researcher in the field of social psychology, and has said people fall into one of three “mindset” categories:

• 40% have a fixed mindset — meaning they get a thrill from doing what they already know how to do, and they view mistakes as judgments of their intellect. They back down from challenges.
• 40% have a growth mindset — meaning they enjoy stretching themselves, and they view mistakes as learning opportunities. They embrace challenges.
• 20% fall somewhere in between — meaning they’re somewhat apprehensive to take on new challenges.

Dweck says these mindsets can take root at an early age. Example: Dweck offered preschoolers the choice to redo an easy jigsaw puzzle or try a harder one.

She said those with a fixed mindset chose to sick with the easy one, while those with a growth mindset went with the harder one.

People can be reprogrammed

All of those employees who back away from accepting difficult new assignments, they’re your fixed mindset people.

The good news is their mindset can be changed.

The key: letting employees know that performance is based on their effort — and not just their results.

You see, to the fixed-mindset preschoolers Dweck studied, a job well done was finishing the puzzle — an outcome grounded in results.

Meanwhile, the growth-mindset preschoolers didn’t think simply finishing the easy puzzle was a job well done — what mattered was personal growth.

Make employees feel like a job well done is grounded in effort, and you start to break down their aversion to new challenges, the research suggests.

This was borne out in a second study Dweck conducted. She subjected two groups to a test. The first group was then praised for its results. The second was praised for its hard work and effort in taking the test.

Results: The first group rejected subsequent opportunities to take on a challenging task. In the second group — the one praised for effort — 90% of the test takers embraced a new challenge.

Finding a balance

Of course, business is dependent on results, not just effort. So the challenge for HR and managers is finding the appropriate balance between evaluating employees based on the two.

Based on Dweck’s research, if the goal is to push employees to embrace challenging new roles and assignments, it would be wise to consider adjusting how feedback is communicated to employees so they know the company highly values effort.

One way to do this would be to recognize employees who’ve demonstrated commendable effort, even if there aren’t hard results to measure yet, or if the outcome wasn’t quite as successful as hoped.

Cite: “Why your approach to employee engagement may be wrong,” by Pope Ward, Melcrum blog.

When you think of employee benefits, health care often comes to mind. But there’s so much more to overall employee well-being than just physical health.  

As an employer, what else can you offer besides health insurance to improve employee wellness? Here are three areas where employees could be struggling and what you can do to help, courtesy of our friends at BenefitsPro:

1) Financial health. Some employees spend more time stressing over their financial problems than their personal health. A high majority of employees are financially stressed, feeling like they have low pay and high work-loads. These employees don’t have financial plans and don’t know how to manage their money.

Solution: Try offering financial wellness programs to alleviate employee stress. Seminars on building emergency funds, meeting financial goals and saving for retirement will be a huge help.

2) Social health. This is another component of employee well-being. If employees don’t feel like they’re connected at work, their motivation and productivity will decrease.

Solution: Employers can facilitate company activities such as holiday parties or events that celebrate employees’ achievements. Also, a casual work environment will ensure employees are comfortable collaborating and interacting with each other. If employees make social bonds at work, they’re more likely to stay engaged and invest more in the company.

3) Emotional health. Financial worry isn’t the only stress workers are battling. Many employees are under a lot of pressure at both home and work.

Solution: If your company offers an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), remind them of all the benefits that are at their disposal. Another angle: Give people time to re-charge. Allow employees to take a mental break by working from home, having long lunches and taking vacation days. They’ll be more engaged and productive when they return.

Focusing on financial, social and emotional health will boost employees’ overall physical health.

The best part: Creating programs for your employees will boost their morale, engagement and productivity at work, and you’ll save time and money in the long run.

It’s a given: Intermittent FMLA leave is a giant thorn in the side of HR people everywhere. But not all intermittent leave requests are equal. Here’s a look at some of the most common scenarios, and how to handle them.

The FMLA allows employers some flexibility in granting different kinds of intermittent leave. Employees are entitled to take it for serious health conditions, either their own or those of immediate family members.

The law also allows use of intermittent leave for child care after the birth or placement of an adopted child, but only if the employer agrees to it. It’s the company’s call.

It’s not always simple, however.

If the mother develops complications from childbirth, or the infant is born premature and suffers from health problems, the “serious health condition” qualifier would likely kick in. As always, it pays to know the medical details before making a decision.

Eligibility’s not automatic

Companies can successfully dispute bogus employee claims to FMLA eligibility.

Consider this real-life example:

A female employee in Maine said she suffered from a chronic condition that made it difficult to make it to work on time.

After she racked up a number of late arrivals – and refused an offer to work on another shift – she was fired.

She sued, saying her tardiness should have been considered intermittent leave. Her medical condition caused her latenesses, she claimed, so each instance should have counted as a block of FMLA leave.

Problem was, she’d never been out of work for medical treatment, or on account of a flare-up of her condition.

The only time it affected her was when it was time to go to work.

Sorry, the court said. Intermittent leave is granted when an employee needs to miss work for a specific period of time, such as a doctor’s appointment or when a condition suddenly becomes incapacitating.

 That wasn’t the case here, the judge said – and giving the employee FMLA protection would simply have given the woman a blanket excuse to break company rules.

Cite: Brown v. Eastern Maine Medical Center.

Designating leave retroactively

In order to maximize workers’ using up their allotted FMLA leave, employers can sometimes classify an absence retroactively.

Example: An employee’s out on two weeks of vacation, but she spends the second week in a hospital recovering from pneumonia.

Her employer doesn’t learn of the hospital stay until she returns to work. But she tells her supervisor about it, who then informs HR. Within two days, HR contacts the woman and says, “That week you were in the hospital should be covered by the FMLA. Here’s the paperwork.”

The key here is that the company acted quickly – within two days of being notified of the qualifying leave.

The tactic’s perfectly legal, and it could make a difference in the impact FMLA leave time could have on the firm’s overall operation.

It’s also an excellent example of the key role managers play in helping companies deal with the negative effects of FMLA.

Using employees’ PTO

First, a no-no: Employers should never tell workers they can’t take FMLA leave until they’ve used up all their vacation, sick and other paid time off (PTO).

Instead, you can require employees to use their accrued PTO concurrently with their intermittent leave time. Employers can also count workers’ comp or short-term disability leave as part of their FMLA time – but in that case, employees can’t be asked to use their accrued PTO.

The transfer option

Companies can temporarily transfer an employee on intermittent leave, to minimize the effect of that person’s absence on the overall operation.

The temporary position doesn’t need to be equivalent to the original job – but the pay and benefits must remain the same.

And, of course, the employee must be given his old job – or its equivalent – when the intermittent leave period’s over.

A few restrictions: The move can’t be made if the transfer “adversely affects” the individual. Example: The new position would lengthen or increase the cost of the employee’s commute.

Such transfers need to be handled in such a way as to avoid looking like the employer is trying to discourage the employee from taking intermittent leave – or worse yet, is being punished for having done so.

Cooperation, please

Although FMLA is certainly an employee-friendly statute, employers do have some rights when it comes to scheduling intermittent leave. For instance, employees are required to consult with their employers about setting up medical treatments on a schedule that minimizes impact on operations.

Of course, the arrangement has to be approved by the healthcare provider. But if an employee fails to consult with HR before scheduling treatment, the law allows employers to require the worker to go back to the provider and discuss alternate arrangements.

Sometimes, it’s as simple as taking an employee aside and saying, “I know you’ve got to go to physical therapy. But these 10 o’clock appointments are really affecting work flow. Could you see about scheduling them for after work hours?”

The firing question

Yes, companies can fire an employee who’s on intermittent FMLA leave. Despite the fears of many employers, FMLA doesn’t confer some kind of special dispensation for workers who exercise their leave rights.

Obviously, workers can’t be fired for taking leave. But employers can lay off, discipline and terminate those employees who violate company policies or perform poorly.

When an employee on FMLA leave is terminated, the DOL decrees that the burden’s on the employer to prove the worker would have been disciplined or terminated regardless of the leave request or usage.

Reductions in force

When an employer has a valid reason for reducing its workforce, the company can lay off an employee on FMLA leave – as long as the firm can prove the person would have been let go regardless of the leave.

So companies should be prepared not only to prove the business necessity of the move, but to show an objective plan for choosing which employees would be laid off.

Misconduct or poor performance

Employees on FMLA leave – of any type – are just as responsible for following performance and behavior rules as those not on leave.

But companies that fire an employee out on FMLA will be under increased pressure to prove that the decision was based on factors other than the worker’s absence.

And courts might well pose employers a key question: Why didn’t you fire this person before he/she took leave?

That answer’s not always difficult. Many times, employers don’t realize how badly an employee was doing until they see the mess he or she has left behind.

The good news: A number of courts have upheld employers’ rights to fire employees on FMLA leave – even when the employee’s problems were first discovered when the employee went off the job.

 

There are a number of different ways for employers to determine whether an individual is a full-time employee or an independent contractor (IC), but is there one single method all companies should be using? In recent guidance, the DOL answered that question with a resounding “yes.”  

The DOL issued a 15-page Administrator’s Interpretation, which was written by DOL administrator David Weil, on how employers should distinguish between employees and contractors and classify accordingly.

Economically dependent or not?

Simply put: Employers should always use the DOL’s “economic realities” test to determine a worker’s classification. This test is designed to determine whether:

• an employee is economically dependent on the employer, which would make him/her an employee, or
• the person is in business for himself or herself, which makes him/her an IC.

The economic realities test includes the following six factors that employers can use on a case-by-case basis to pinpoint the correct way to classify an individual:

1. the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business
2. the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill
3. the extent of the relative investments of the employer and the worker
4. whether the work performed requires special skills and initiative
5. the permanency of the relationship, and
6. the degree of control exercised or retained by the employer.

‘Most workers are employees’

The DOL’s guidance comes right on the heels of a controversial ruling about worker classification made by California’s Labor Commission. Just last month, the Commission caused quite a stir among employers everywhere when it said that Uber drivers were actually employees and not ICs.

Now it seems like the DOL feels the need to weigh in on the contractor issue.

One major takeaway for employers on the contractor issue is the DOL’s statement that “most workers are employees.” Weil elaborated on this by stating:

In sum, most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definitions. The very broad definition of employment under the FLSA as “to suffer or permit to work” and the Act’s intended expansive coverage for workers must be considered when applying the economic realities factors to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The factors should not be analyzed mechanically or in a vacuum, and no single factor, including control, should be over-emphasized. Instead, each factor should be considered in light of the ultimate determination of whether the worker is really in business for him or herself (and thus is an independent contractor) or is economically dependent on the employer (and thus is its employee).

In short, the guidance serves as an important reminder to employers everywhere — through statements about how most employees are contractors — about just how important it is to be absolutely certain ICs are classified correctly and reminds them the economic realities test is the best way to make that determination.

After suffering a defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court in the high-profile religious discrimination case brought against it by former applicant Samantha Elauf, retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has decided to settle with Elauf. 

To end the case, which began in 2008 when the EEOC filed charges on Elauf’s behalf, Abercrombie has agreed to pay $25,670 in damages to Elauf as well as $18,983 in court costs.

According to a statement released by the EEOC, the damages figure is equal to what a jury awarded her in 2011, prior to an appeal by Abercrombie.

Conflict with ‘look policy’

This all started when Elauf applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in her hometown of Tulsa, OK. Elauf wore a headscarf or hijab as part of her Muslim faith, and she was denied hire for failing to conform to the company’s “look policy,” which banned head coverings.

Elauf filed a charge with the EEOC, which then filed a religious discrimination suit against the company on her behalf.

But Abercrombie prevailed in appeals court by claiming it didn’t have to relax its “Look Policy” because Elauf never asked it to do so — or even mentioned her religion. Abercrombie argued that Elauf needed to provide explicit, verbal notice of a conflict between the policy and her religious practice.

The EEOC then asked the Supreme Court to hear its case, which it did.

The High Court’s verdict came down earlier this summer. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled Elauf was not required to make a specific request for a religious accommodation.

The court majority said there was enough evidence to show that Abercrombie knew she wore the head scarf as part of her religious practice and refused to hire her to avoid having to accommodate her religious practice.

So the case was remanded back to the appeals court, which was asked to reexamine the case using the High Court’s thinking: If an employer has an idea that an individual would need a religious accommodation, the employer is obligated to explore whether it could reasonably grant such an accommodation.

But before the court could take second look at the case, Abercrombie settled.

In the agency’s statement, EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said:

“We were extremely pleased with the Supreme Court ruling in our favor, which has reinforced our longstanding efforts to enforce Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination. We are now even more pleased to have final resolution of this case and to have Ms. Elauf receive the monetary damages awarded to her by a jury in 2011.”

Did you know that without a talent management strategy, a company with 2,000 employees is losing almost $2 million every year in preventable turnover alone? The new eBook, Why Your Nonexistent Talent Management Strategy is Costing You Money – And How to Fix It, shares the alarming hidden costs of managing employees “the way you’ve always done it.” If your organization is still relying on manual processes to save money, this eBook will show you what you may be leaving on the table and steps you can take today to turn that around. You’ll learn how a better talent management strategy can help your company achieve:

• a 15% increase in earnings
• more than 2x the median revenue per employee
• 41% lower turnover rate among high performers

Click here to learn more!