SALES & MARKETING MANAGER, Page 8 Tag

No doubt, strong employee-boss relationships help drive a successful business. And employees who regularly spend time with their manager benefit from strong communication, collaboration and insight. But here’s the million-dollar question: 

Could employees spend too much time with their higher-ups?

The answer is yes, according to a study by leadership and training firm Leadership IQ.

The firm conducted a massive survey of 32,410 American and Canadian executives, managers and employees to determine how many hours per week employees should be spending with their direct leader.

It found workers who spend too much time with their bosses will often experience a drop in productivity, engagement and innovation.

What’s the cutoff?

The study said that employees should ideally spend six hours each week with their bosses. Three hours or less isn’t nearly enough, and much more than six starts to become counterproductive.

For example, any more than six hours sends the message to the employee that the boss:

• doesn’t trust the employee to do his or her job
• has a tendency to micromanage his employees
• isn’t willing to let the employee grow in his or her role and further develop valuable skills, and
• believes the employee might not be the right person for the job.

Bottom line: If a manager has to spend much more than six hours per week with an employee, than you’ve hired the wrong person.

Although it’s understandably tempting for managers to keep new hires close, doing so for a prolonged period of time won’t let them grow — and is sure to send them packing before too long.

First thing to do

Now it’s time to assess what’s happening at your company.

Sit down with your management team and find out how much time they spend with subordinates each week. If it’s more than six hours, try to find ways to bring that number down.

Remind them that more time spent with employees isn’t always better.

Orchestrating a great feedback session is as much about what you shouldn’t do as what you should. 

According to Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady (EvilHRLady.org), giving feedback improperly is as bad as not giving feedback at all.

Adding to the equation is the fact that many companies, during manager training, tend to focus entirely on what should be done and said in employee feedback sessions — rather than also training mangers on what costly actions and phrases should be avoided at the same time.

So Lucas shared in her always-excellent Inc. Magazine column 10 mistakes that should never be made when providing employee feedback.

Pass these abbreviated versions along to your managers (and go to Lucas’ column for a full breakdown):

• No. 10: Forgetting to say what you want. Don’t just tell employees what they screwed up. Tell them what you want them to do going forward.
• No. 9: Failing to document. Create a paper trail. It helps when you have to justify a decision. Document not only what the employee did wrong, but also what goals you set for them in the future.
• No. 8: Bringing up info that doesn’t matter. Lucas says if an employee misses a deadline, say they missed the deadline … period. Don’t say, “You missed a deadline because of your FMLA leave.” Comments like that have the makings of a retaliation lawsuit.
• No. 7: Only providing the big, annual review. Let employees know where they stand throughout the year – not in one big info dump.
• No. 6: Saving up complaints. Don’t dump a slew of complaints on someone all at once. It’s demoralizing. Plus, it waters down your feedback. Reason? Because now, instead of having to focus on correcting one thing at a time over a period of time, they’re focusing on fixing multiple things at once.
• No. 5: Failing to praise in public. Offering praise in front of someone’s peers is far more powerful than an “attaboy” behind closed doors.
• No. 4: Failing to give the good with the bad. If you only tell employees what they’re doing wrong, they’ll assume you don’t like their work and that they aren’t a good fit. As a result, they’ll look to move on.
• No. 3: Giving negative feedback in front of others. Public humiliation isn’t the way to bring the best out of people.
• No. 2: Showing anger. If you’re angry, take a moment to calm down. When you’re angry, you’re more likely to say something that you’ll wish you could take back — or that could get yourself or the company in trouble.
• No. 1: Yelling. Screaming at someone will only make the person more frazzled. Also, see No. 2.

Between Obamacare’s complex compliance challenges and the growing need for top-notch benefits to recruit and retain top talent, the demand for skilled benefits brokers has grown exponentially in recent years. So how can HR pros be sure their brokers have their back?  

Like anything in the HR and benefits world, it all comes down to doing some research on your company’s specific needs and checking to make sure the broker you select has the tools to take care of those things.

Whether you’re reviewing your current broker’s performance or looking to enlist the services of a new one, here’s a checklist on what your company deserves to receive from a benefits broker:

The basics

Does the broker have solid references?  Obviously, you want a broker with some industry experience. And that experience should translate directly into lots of strong references from satisfied customers. When asked, reliable benefits brokers should have no trouble providing an array of references from similar businesses in your industry and local area.

Does the broker have a comprehensive understanding of all plan designs? When it comes to health insurance, there are plenty of options for employers to choose from. And a skilled broker should have expert knowledge of all of them. From traditional plans to CDHPs to various self-funding options and everything in between, your broker should be able to tell you the pros and cons of all of these plan options for your company. You’ll also want to find out what methods the broker uses when recommending benefits options.

In addition to general plan design info, brokers should have a wealth of info on all of the health care carriers in your area, as well as apples-to-apples comparisons of their different price points and answer questions like: What are the differences between the costs and plan designs among the major carriers in our area?

Is there a good variety of different plan choices? On top of standard health-care coverage, a benefits broker should be able to assist you with an array of benefits options like llife insurance, dental and vision coverage, long-term disability and wellness options, among others.

Can the broker answer questions about federal and state regs? In the end, employers are on the hook for noncompliance with federal and state regulations. But that doesn’t mean your broker can’t provide you with guidance in this area. So when meeting with a potential broker, prepare a list compliance questions to gauge his or her expertise on federal and state regs.

Can the broker provide practical, real-world info on Obamacare’s impact on your workforce? This is a big one. These days, any reliable benefits broker should be able to go beyond just explaining what’s included in the Affordable Care Act. Your broker should be able to tell you how each major provision is likely to impact your company, with real-life examples you can pass along to employees and upper management.

Level of commitment

Once you’ve determined that the broker has a handle on all of the basics, you’ll want to make sure he or she is the right fit for your company. To that end, you’ll want to get answers to the following questions:

How dedicated will the broker be to your company’s specific needs? Benefits brokers should always be willing to put in the time that’s necessary to understand the specific needs of a company, so it’s important to ask what he or she is willing to do for your company.

This usually entails a broker looking at job descriptions, income levels, languages spoken and other employee demographics when it comes to determining the best benefits options for your company. You’ll also want to find out what strategies the broker has in place to determine your company’s top health risks, as well as tactics to limit your exposure to those risks?

Is the broker willing to participate? If your HR or benefits department handles the brunt of the benefits administration you may only want a broker who comes in for annual open enrollment — or even someone who can offer advice and suggestions remotely.

However, some firms prefer a broker who takes part in regular (quarterly or monthly) education sessions and handles data-management processes, so early on you’ll want to find out how willing a broker is to participate and take on various tasks.

How often does the broker check-in/what are his or her preferred communication methods? It doesn’t matter how qualified a broker is, if he or she can’t put in the time your firm requires, the relationship just isn’t going to work. So HR and benefits pros will really want to do their homework here. Find out what the broker’s preferred communication method is, as well as how often (weekly, monthly, etc.) he or she normally checks in with clients.

What type of cost-sharing and administrative help does the broker provide? Reliable brokers should be willing to help share in some of the cost of companies’ employee-education efforts and be willing to assist in claim administration efforts.

Here’s a dirty secret: Your job candidates are also your customers. Hence, ensuring a good candidate experience can only be good for business. Think about your company and your brand. Now think about your recruiting process. Does your recruiting process reflect your company’s brand? If your CEO went through your recruiting process, what would he or she say?

Learn more!  

Every manager can use a quick self-audit now and then.  

Take a look at this quiz, commissioned by SwitchmyBusisness.com, a U.K.-based utility consulting firm. It’s a kind of quirky test designed to help managers determine what their management style is, where their strengths lie and little things to remember when the going gets a little tough.

Be forewarned: Those Brits spell some words funny.

The current price of an employee lawsuit alleging religious discrimination? Right around $600k.

Consolidation Coal Company and its parent company, CONSOL Energy, Inc., were recently ordered to pay a total of $586,860 — inckuding $150,000 in compensatory damages — for forcing a long-time employee to retire because they refused to accommodate his religious beliefs, the EEOC announced.

The EEOC had sued the employer in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia after first attempting to reach a settlement through its conciliation process.

According to EEOC’s lawsuit, Beverly R. Butcher, Jr. had worked as a general inside laborer at the companies’ mine in Mannington, W.V., for over 35 years when the mining companies required employees to use a newly installed biometric hand scanner to track employee time and attendance.

Butcher repeatedly informed company officials that submitting to biometric hand scanning violated his sincerely held religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian. He also wrote a letter to company officials explaining his beliefs about the relationship between hand-scanning technology and the “Mark of the Beast” and the Antichrist discussed in the New Testament’s Book of Revelation, and requesting an exemption from the hand scanning based on his religious beliefs.

In response, the mining companies refused to consider alternate means of tracking Butcher’s time and attendance and informed him he would be disciplined up to and including discharge if he refused to scan his hand, according to the lawsuit.

EEOC charged that Butcher was forced to retire because the companies refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for his religious beliefs.

Last January, a jury decided that the employer had, indeed, violated federal discrimination law. In June, a federal court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine lost wages and benefits and injunctive relief. On Aug. 21, the court issued its damages order.

You’ve probably seen countless studies and articles about how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could affect employers’ business practices. Well, here’s a real-life example of how one provision of the law is causing major problems.  

As reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Allegheny Technologies, a specialty metals producer, recently locked out more than 2,000 union workers because it couldn’t come to terms with the employees’ union, United Steelworkers (USW), over a contract that expired on June 30.

The contract being negotiated was supposed to run through 2018 — the same year Obamacare’s dreaded “Cadillac Tax” is slated to kick in.

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

And, as the IRS recently clarified, employers may wind up actually paying more than 40% because of the income-tax on reimbursements paid to insurers and TPAs, the entities that are expected to physically pay the tax.

In Allegheny Technologies’ final contract proposal, a four-year deal, the steel producer included a provision that would require new negotiations during the contract period if the company saw that increasing premiums would trigger the Cadillac Tax.

If that scenario were to take place, the contract would be changed so the excise tax threshold wouldn’t be reached. A copy of the proposal is posted on USW’s website.

Allegheny Technologies also proposed a number of steps to avoid triggering the tax, such as switching to health plans that require workers to pay higher deductibles. The proposal calls for union workers at Allegheny to incur a gradual increase in out-of-pocket maximums for family coverage — from $3,000 the first year of the contract to $6,000 the final year.

More lockouts coming?

USW also represents U.S. Steel and the world’s largest steel producer, Arcelor Mittal, both of which have contracts slated to expire by September 1.

And there’s a good chance similar problems could occur if Cadillac Tax exceptions aren’t included in contract negotiations with those companies.

In fact, metal industry analyst John Tumazos said, “I don’t think any of the companies [U.S. Steel and Arcelor Mittal] will sign on for anything that is a Cadillac plan.”

The EEOC has found some of Target Corporation’s pre-hire assessments wanting. 

The EEOC investigated the Minneapolis-based retail corporation’s hiring practices after hearing reports of possible violations, and the federal agency claims to have found several things that are illegal.

For starters, the EEOC said three pre-hire employment assessments Target used disproportionately screened out applicants for exempt professional positions based on race and sex. It’s estimated the number of those affected was in the four-figure range.

The EEOC said the tests weren’t sufficiently “job-related and consistent with business necessity” to pass muster under the Civil Rights Act.

To make matters worse, the EEOC said one of those assessments also violated the ADA. It said that assessment was performed by psychologists and qualified as a pre-employment medical exam, which are prohibited by the ADA. Only after being given an offer of employment can an employee be asked to undergo a medical exam, and it has to either be part of a voluntary wellness program or “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Finally, the EEOC claimed that Target committed record-keeping violations by failing to maintain records sufficient enough to assess the impact of its hiring procedures.

The EEOC likely would’ve filed suit against Target for the alleged offenses, but it’s first required to enter into its conciliation process.

During that process, Target agreed to settle for $2.8 million, which will be distributed to those individuals deemed to have been adversely affected by its hiring processes.

Target spokesperson Molly Snyder told Fortune that the company decided to settle with the EEOC because of the significant resources that would be required if the case were to go to court.

As part of the agreement, Target has said it will also:

• not use the assessments in question again
• change its applicant tracking system to ensure the collection of data is sufficient to assess adverse impact
• perform a predictive validity study for all assessments currently in use and any new assessments it expects to use in the future
• monitor assessments for adverse impact, and
• provide the EEOC with a detailed summary of the company’s studies and any adverse impact analysis it completes.

“We applaud Target for taking corrective action to ensure the validity of their hiring practices,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang in a statement released by the agency.  “This resolution demonstrates the benefits of working with EEOC and serves as a model for businesses committed to effective and lawful selection procedures.”

Snyder went on to tell Fortune that despite the fact that the EEOC found tests that had potential adverse impact on applicants, no disparities in Target’s hiring practices were found.