Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Tolerating Bad Behavior and HR Practices

"There was a time not all that long ago when fudging—or “enhancing”—items on a résumé or job application was viewed as a normal and acceptable workforce practice. Few companies did background checks in those days, and padding the résumé was viewed as a very minor indiscretion and nothing to get worked up about.

In fact, I can remember being a new college graduate looking for my first “real” job and getting counseled, by a number of people from college professors to working professionals, to pad my internship experience to make it seem more substantial and make me appear more hirable.

Well, that was then and this is now. The trend these days is not only to do background checks on prospective employees, but to dig deeper into an applicant’s credentials to make sure they are what they say they are. And, as this New York Times story from 2006 points out, the consequences of being dishonest about yourself during the hiring process can have career-altering consequences—unless you work for the County of Orange in California, of course.

Orange County is where the Workforce Management world headquarters is located, and we like to think that our presence here helps raise the bar for the various organizations and businesses that call our little slice of California home.

No such luck, I’m afraid. Here’s a recent story from the Orange County Register that is remarkable for two reasons:

1. It says that the county’s HR manual was so old (last revised in 1978), according to a report from the Orange County Grand Jury, that it still makes references to typewriters and rotary phones.

2. It also says that the Orange County Grand Jury found that “deliberate misrepresentation during the hiring/promotion process … may not be automatic grounds for dismissal,” according to the Register story.

Here’s the part of the newspaper story that floored me: “Specifically defined educational requirements in some cases are considered by some HR professionals in the county as ‘artificial barriers to advancement,’ the Grand Jury’s report says. Some [county] agencies do not bother to check educational claims made by applicants—if you say you are a Harvard MBA, as far as they are concerned, you are a Harvard MBA. If you state during the hiring process that you have never been arrested for DUI but you actually have been and it subsequently comes to light, your job is not necessarily in jeopardy.”

Sound pretty amazing? Well, here’s some more: “As improbable as it may seem, omissions and false statements are considered on a case-by-case basis. If you have been a good county employee, or your supervisor really supports you, or your indiscretion is not material to your job description, you will probably keep your job.”

I have never been one to push for a zero-tolerance policy about most anything, but this HR policy by the County of Orange seems to turn the notion of a “good county employee” on its head. How can someone be considered a good employee if they weren’t truthful and upfront with you when you were hiring them? And how can one assume that the “good county employee” who lied to get hired won’t lie again on the job about something a lot more important?

California likes to tout that it is on the cutting edge of workplace issues, but this is as regressive and backward of a human resources policy as I have ever seen. But I shouldn’t be surprised; after all, Orange County is also the place where you have senior executives defending all manner of indefensible, boorish behavior.

Letting employees lie during the hiring process is a bad HR policy in any organization or business anywhere. It sends a terrible message to everyone and, more important, says truthfulness and honesty are values that don’t much matter anymore. No wonder people have so little faith in their government—any government—these days."


(Excerpt from www.workforce.com)


Getting a Better Handle on Employee Engagement

HELLO, BDMs!

PLEASE GIVE THIS ARTICLE A PIECE OF YOUR THOUGHT.

"It’s hard to warm up to employee engagement.


It’s a tough concept to get your head around, at least from my perspective, mainly because it is so difficult to define and measure. I’m also skeptical of a lot of the surveys and studies pertaining to engagement because I’m not always sure of what they are measuring. Here is one that seems to be able to get past that issue by comparing engagement across generations and age groups.

Also, this year’s WorkTrends Report by the Kenexa Research Institute resonated with me because it actually seemed to talk about engagement and make some sense.

According to the survey, you can summarize employee engagement with these four primary principles, or drivers, that show that workers are engaged by:

• Leaders who inspire confidence in the future.
• Managers who respect and appreciate their employees.
• Exciting work that employees know how to do.
• Employers who display a genuine responsibility to employees and communities.

Kenexa has also come up with the Kenexa Employee Engagement Index, which comprises “four key components—pride, satisfaction, advocacy and retention,” according to a Kenexa press release. “Employee engagement, therefore, is not strictly happiness, excitement or the willingness to work long hours. Engaged employees align with their organization’s goals and are personally vested in the outcomes.”

This employee engagement index, or EEI, is “57 percent across all surveyed countries … [and the] EEI score for India, the top-ranked country, is almost twice that of Japan’s, the lowest-ranked country,” according to Kenexa. There’s also this additional bit of perspective: “In general, EEI scores for North American employees are higher than EEI scores for European workers—the Netherlands is the exception. Outside of India, other Asian and Middle Eastern countries score lower on the EEI. As economies strengthen in other low-ranking countries like Russia and China, EEI scores could increase in future surveys.”

“Organizations can make changes to align with these critical drivers,” says Jack Wiley, executive director at the Kenexa Research Institute. “Doing so makes good business sense because it not only improves employee engagement but also drives higher quality and customer satisfaction, revenue growth, and the company’s profitability. Time and time again we see that an engaged workforce delivers superior business results.”

It’s hard to dig into this survey, since you need to jump through a few online hoops to actually buy it, but many of the findings that Kenexa touts in the press release are not exactly breakthroughs. For example, “according to the WorkTrends data, if employees are confident in their senior leaders and the future of their employer, their EEI scores are four to five times higher than those of employees who lack this confidence. Confidence levels correlate with fast-growing economies—India, Mexico and Australia all have experienced recent economic growth and their employee engagement index scores are among the highest.”

It’s not a news flash that employees who are confident in their organization’s senior leadership and future are a lot more engaged, but the interesting thing to me is how much more engaged they are. If you can find a way to turn that into a greater ROI, you have something tangible. That might help take employee engagement out of the shadows as some hard-to-figure measure, and instead make it a real, honest-to-God business metric that managers can comfortably use and understand."

(Excerpt from www.workforce.com)

Monday, September 1, 2008