Have You Minimized Your Axability?

I am sure many of you are asking yourself "is my job safe; am I going to lose my job; or am I next in line to be laid off". Well in today's world if you are a realist you would be asking yourself these questions. If you can believe this, I did every day for 20 years at my last company. Don't call me paranoid, call me a realist. You can be a star one day and a goat the next. Anyone who thinks otherwise should have their head examined. Today business is business and not a welfare home.

So to minimize your axability (or RIFability to some) you should think about the following things to protect your job in a recessional economy:

• Act like a manager/survivor/partner/leader. You should act confident, always add value each day to the area you work in and always be available. Provide advice and ideas that will strengthen the business environment in a confident manner.
• Provide your leaders with positive hope. Give them the sense that they are moving in the right direction. As always make sure it is in the right direction and you agree with the approach. I don't mean brown nosing here.
• Get to work early. Don't be the straggler, the one who always comes in just after work starts or calls in repeatedly with some lame excuse.
• Look busy. That means not busy work but good solid work that you can see the product as well as others.
• Be part of the organization. Your success will be monitored by your participation in the organization. Be visible, be noticed, be out there with the troops. Don't be an outsider. That old saying the train is leaving the station and you better be on it or get run over. When I mean run over I mean "see ya, your fired".
• Plan B-D. If you can not follow these very simple guidelines you will be another plan which may mean looking for another job. The thought here is do it while you are still employed.

To further this thought you should read the September issue of Harvard Business Review (http://www.hbr.org/) . It articulates the thoughts here in more detail from 2 very credible sources besides myself, Janet Banks formerly of FleetBoston and Diane Coutu from McKinsey & Company.

International Mobility

International mobility, where professional employees are required to work cross-border and remotely in order to meet corporate and client needs, is set to become even more virtual and certainly more widespread in the future. The need for an internationally mobile workforce comes as a result of sharpened competition, the pace of globalisation and the pressure to operate on a trans-national basis. Although expected to expand increasingly over the coming years, cost pressures, lifestyle choices, changing work practices and improved technology will be making changes to the traditional nature of international mobility. But having good people amounts to nothing if a company doesn’t have good people management. For companies that do business globally, the need for broad, comprehensive HR programs that anticipate, and address, the myriad issues that come with having an internationally-dispersed workforce is absolutely crucial. It’s essential that you have in place a competitive international mobility programme that is not only aligned with your business strategy but also facilitates the transactional aspects of international mobility.

If this is your situation:

• You need to ensure that your international assignment policies are aligned with and meet the needs of your business while being cost efficient.
• You want your international assignment delivery structure to be efficient and to use technology effectively.
• You need tax-efficient international assignment structures and policies.
• You need to manage risks by complying with regulations in the locations where your global workforce is deployed.
• You need tax-efficient international assignment structures and policies.
• You want to ensure you are selecting the right staff for international assignments and that their performance is meeting business objectives.

Your comments and ideas are welcomed please reply to this blog.

Human Resource Strategy & Business Effectiveness

The world of work is changing: outsourcing, international mobility, talent shortages, new labour laws, globalisation, shifting demographics, an ageing workforce. Where, how, and for whom, people work is, in turn, transforming company structures and cultures. Over the next decade, the convergence of dominant business, demographic, and social trends will only accelerate the changes sweeping through today's workplace. In fact, people issues within the workplace are now a priority on the boardroom agenda. Companies have realised that a successful business depends on how you design and implement a people strategy that is properly aligned with, and supports, your business strategy. Only then can HR become an actively participating strategic business partner in implementing plans and achieving budgets. As a result, HR leaders are under more pressure than ever to demonstrate results from their workforce practices and policies; they are being encouraged to implement people strategies that support the organisation's business objectives and increase accountability and transparency around people management and reporting. The bottom line: HR is increasingly seen as a strategic linchpin—one that needs to work closely with operations, finance, and other corporate departments to help drive business strategy and success.

If this is your situation:

• You need guidance in developing and deploying HR strategy and planning services.
• You want to create a new HR service delivery model.
• You have decided to create and implement HR scorecards but don’t know where to begin.
• You have to benchmark your core HR processes—locally and globally.
• You need to identify key performance indicators for your HR function.
• You must align your HR strategy with your organisational culture, values and business strategies.
• You want to leverage your HR resources so that you become an employer of choice.

Your comments and additional ideas are welcomed.

EEO-1 Deadline is September 30

Employers have less than two weeks to prepare and submit their EEO-1 reports. SHRM members can receive resources on this topic from SHRM's Express Request service (select key term "FALL: EEO-1.")

2009 HR Budgets

I am sure by now most of you have begun your 2009 budget cycling and for HR 2009 will be a bell weather year. As you look at the economy, recent corporate layoffs, corporations that are or have been crashing and burning, you need to make sure you place your budget dollars in the right spots. So, where are they you may ask? You need to look carefully at the following areas to ensure that you focus on retention of your stars as well as those in key positions that you do not want to lose.

It is also time to look at those resources that you have outsourced. It is critical that you look at those costs carefully and renegotiate with those providers harder than you ever have before. The budget dollars you save on renegotiating fees you can place in retention programs and general employee based programs that will keep your employees at your company and also as an attraction mechanism for those you intend to recruit. Here are some areas to concentrate on if you have not already:

1. it goes without saying that you should zero base your 2009 HR budget for every line item
2. renegotiate your recruitment fees for contingent and retained searches
3. review and renegotiate where necessary web-based expenses
4. renegotiate wellness programs you already have in place
5. strong review of your benefit packages and survey to make sure you have the right mix of programs
6. training programs and web-based learning
7. employee satisfaction survey to make sure your employees are in harmony with the strategy of the company and your entire employee program mix
8. review of compensation programs to ensure you are maximizing productivity
9. orientation is key to what an employee feels about a company in the early stages of their employment
10. travel & relocation, making sure you have the appropriate dollars in place to keep in front of your employees to stop-gap any impending issues
11. utilize your dues and subscriptions that build your team and strengthen the organization as a whole
12. make sure there are budget dollars for your intranet so it is the first place employees go for information

These are just a few key budget items that you should be looking at to maximize your budget and how you spend your budget dollars.

As always your input and comments are welcomed.

New Law Will Allay Fears of Genetic Discrimination

On May 21st, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) became law. The new law was enacted to protect individuals on the basis of their genetic information in both employment and health care.

What is genetic information? GINA explains that genetic information is information about a persons’ genetic composition, or a persons’ family history of inherited traits and disorders.

Perhaps the most relevant to HR professionals, the new law will make it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee due to the employee’s genetic information or family member’s genetic information. GINA will further make it illegal for an insured or self-insured health care plan to deny eligibility to enroll for health care coverage or change plan premium or contribution rates because of an individual’s or family member’s genetic information.

The new genetic nondiscrimination law will prohibit an employer form requesting or otherwise acquiring a person’s genetic information, except when such information is needed for FMLA compliance, used for an employer-sponsored genetic service or wellness program, or when such information is commercially available. Some inadvertent acquisitions or genetic information may also be permitted under GINA.

In addition to the new federal statute, most states have their own restrictions on genetic information (only PA, ND, & MS have no genetic information statutes). HR professionals should know that GINA will allow state laws that provide additional protections to individuals, above and beyond the federal statute, to supersede the new federal law.

The employment provisions for GINA do not become effective until November 2009, or 18 months after President Bush signed the bill into law. The provisions pertaining to group health plans become effective May 2009 – one year after the date of enactment.

As legislation develops, keep in mind that you can get involved in the issues that may impact your workplace by expressing your views through SHRMs HRVoice program. SHRM members can plan an instrumental part in influencing HR related-information at the federal and state levels by using HRVoice. Visit www.shrm.org/government/hrvoice .

Today's Best and Worst Cities for Salary Growth

Let's face it, most of us wouldn't complain if we were offered a raise. Used to be, you could expect at least a cost of living raise once a year. But these days, that's not necessarily a given.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the average cost of living in the United States grew by 4.1 percent in all of 2007. But average wage growth was 3.4 percent, according to CBsalary.com. This year, the BLS reports the cost of living has already grown 5.5 percent. These numbers, unfortunately, are troubling to the average worker.

So where do you have a better chance of earning a raise that at least matches the cost of living increase? And where is salary growth seriously lagging? We looked at the top 200 metropolitan statistical areas in the United States and identified the 20 cities with the fastest wage growth and the 20 cities with the slowest.

The results varied even within individual states. While wage growth in College Station and Waco, Texas grew at a healthy clip in 2007, growth in other Texas cities like Amarillo, Tyler and Victoria, was sluggish. California had three cities among the 20 with the speediest growth. The Northwest (Idaho and Wyoming) and Southeast (Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) regions had solid growth as well.

Fastest Wage Growth
College Station-Bryan, Texas2007 salary growth: 9.5 percent
Gulfport-Biloxi, Miss.2007 salary growth: 7.2 percent
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, La.2007 salary growth: 6.8 percent
Redding, Calif.2007 salary growth: 5.9 percent
Merced, Calif.2007 salary growth: 5.7 percent
Boise City-Nampa, Idaho2007 salary growth: 5.5 percent
Dover, Del.2007 salary growth: 5.4 percent
Pocatello, Idaho2007 salary growth: 5.3 percent
Baltimore-Towson, Md.2007 salary growth: 5.3 percent
Wilmington, Del.-Md.-N.J. 2007 salary growth: 5.2 percent
Jackson, Tenn.2007 salary growth: 5.2 percent
Casper, Wyo. 2007 salary growth: 5.1 percent
Atlantic City, N.J.2007 salary growth: 5.1 percent
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, Calif.2007 salary growth: 5.1 percent
Lakeland, Fla. 2007 salary growth: 5.1 percent
Waco, Texas 2007 salary growth: 5.0 percent
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, La. 2007 salary growth: 4.9 percent
Athens-Clarke County, Ga. 2007 salary growth: 4.9 percent
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill. 2007 salary growth: 4.8 percent
Chico, Calif. 2007 salary growth: 4.8 percent
Slowest Wage Growth
Florence-Muscle Shoals, Ala. 2007 salary growth: 0.1 percent
Ocala, Fla. 2007 salary growth: 0.9 percent
Alexandria, La.2007 salary growth: 0.9 percent
Kalamazoo-Portage, Mich. 2007 salary growth: 0.9 percent
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, Mich.2007 salary growth: 1 percent
Springfield, Ill.2007 salary growth: 1.1 percent
Visalia-Porterville, Calif. 2007 salary growth: 1.1 percent
Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, Mass. 2007 salary growth: 1.2 percent
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, Iowa 2007 salary growth: 1.2 percent
Decatur, Ala. 2007 salary growth: 1.4 percent
Dubuque, Iowa 2007 salary growth: 1.4 percent
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 2007 salary growth: 1.4 percent
Amarillo, Texas 2007 salary growth: 1.5 percent
Weirton-Steubenville, W.Va.-Ohio 2007 salary growth: 1.6 percent
Greenville, N.C. 2007 salary growth: 1.7 percent
Gainesville, Fla. 2007 salary growth: 1.7 percent
Victoria, Texas 2007 salary growth: 1.8 percent
Sheboygan, Wis. 2007 salary growth: 1.8 percent
Tyler, Texas 2007 salary growth: 1.8 percent

How Do You Identify Your Company's Future Leaders

In observing the future leaders of companies I have worked for over the past 30 years there are certain traits that you as human resources practitioners should look. Here are some key helpful hints on how to identify your future leaders. If you install these into your succession planning your company will benefit:

1. individuals who deliver consistent results;
2. individuals who demonstrate that they can grow, adapt, are flexible, and lave the penchant to learn faster and better than their peer group;
3. continually demonstrate looking for challenges, assignments, move out of their comfort zone while showing excellent judgement;
4. individuals who take leaps of faith in innovation to grow your business;
5. individuals who are not satisfied with the status-quo and who look to take opportunities to the next higher level;
6. individuals who have excellent decision making, looking for team input rather than shooting from the hip;
7. individuals who think through a problem or opportunity clearly and have the guts to be open, honest, and authentic in a point of view, and
8. individuals who question voraciously to determine the proper direction and instill a sense of innovation and imagination in their resolve.

What are your thoughts and opinions. Your comments are welcome.

Corporate & Social Return on Investment

In early August (August 5 post) I outlined the need and importance of social and corporate responsibility. As the cultural landscape continues to change, we have found that there are big returns when companies and their employees give back to the community. This is coupled with employees continued interest in giving back to the community and the environment where their company is resident or the city/town/hamlet where they live.

I discussed the compelling rationale on this benefit and what companies can do. In a recent study, there is evidence that employees who give back tend to remain longer with their company than those who do not. Think about your retention rate. As well, 27% of customers define corporate and social responsibility as a company's commitment to the community or environment & 76% of consumers who purchase goods & services produced by companies with strong social, corporate, or environmental output make their decision to buy based on that commitment.

So, if you are a smart company with smart employees you will benefit from providing the opportunity for employees to give back to their communities as well as the company you have to opportunity to gain additional market share. For that your shareholders will see a greater return on their investment (look at General Electric's 2007 Annual Report). These are powerful dynamics at work in our ever changing world. In addition, there is overwhelming evidence that companies with these type incentive and social conscience programs will significantly outperform those companies that do not.

Your comments and concerns are of interest and I would like to hear your feedback. Please email me.

Hiring from Outside the Company: How New People Can Bring Unexpected Problems

As life-long employment fades and the workforce becomes increasingly mobile, many companies look to hire skilled, experienced workers to improve productivity quickly. Those workers, however, often bring baggage from prior jobs that can negate the benefits of their prior experience, according to new Wharton research.

Companies might be better off investing in training fresh recruits with little experience in an industry so the companies can have more control over how the new workers adapt to their new employer's corporate strategy and culture. The research found that training may be more productive than paying a premium to hire experienced workers who might come from a different sort of corporate environment.

"Human resources managers will want to [hire] people who worked in a related industry or firm for the skills they bring. That makes sense from a human capital perspective, but we question whether that's all they bring with them. Do they bring other experiences ... positive or negative?" asks Wharton management professor Nancy Rothbard, co-author of a paper titled Unpacking Prior Experience: How Career History Affects Job Performance. Rothbard wrote the paper with Gina Dokko of New York University's Stern School of Business and Steffanie L. Wilk of Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business.

Drawing on psychological theory, the authors examined employment applications and hiring records at two call centers for a major property and casualty insurance firm. The authors set out to assess not only the impact of bringing in skilled and knowledgeable workers, but also cognitive and behavioral responses that developed during [the new workers'] previous employment.

When More Experience Means Less Success

In interviews with managers early on in the project, Rothbard and her colleagues discovered that the issue of cross-corporation baggage kept coming up. A senior human resource manager told the research team, "We tried to hire from our competitors and paid a premium for the experience -- but those hires were the least successful." Another manager quoted in the paper said: "People are weighed down by the baggage they bring in."

Rothbard says executives at the insurance company told of hiring a talented and highly trained adjustor from another insurance company. While the hiring company provided high-end insurance with a strong emphasis on customer service, the adjustor came from a company that was more focused on keeping costs down. Rothbard says the adjustor just could not help himself from "nickel and diming" customers on their claims, even though that attitude conflicted sharply with the firm's strategic direction and culture.

"It was so embedded in his ideas about how to do the job that even at this other firm, where management tried to instill the other set of values, it didn't translate," explains Rothbard. "He had the skills to get up and running quickly in the [basics] of what an adjustor does, but ... he was ultimately not adaptable to the strategy and norms of the new firm. His experience tended to trap him."

Rothbard describes employment "baggage" as a set of norms and experiences that shape the workers' response to their jobs as much as, if not more than, the industry and occupation-related skills and knowledge they bring to their work.

According to the paper, "Habits, routines, and scripts that contribute to performance in one organizational context may detract from performance in a different organizational context. That is, the relationship between prior related experience and performance may not be wholly positive. Indeed, despite the common assumption that prior related experience will improve performance, past research findings have been mixed about the effect of work experience on performance."

Rothbard and the other researchers were intrigued by the notion that the norms and values employees pick up in the culture of one firm are not easily shed as they cross organizational boundaries. "Those kinds of transfers really are not discussed at all when we talk about mobility of the workforce. We assume people are cogs that can be plugged in and they will perform similarly in different environments."

Incidentally, Rothbard says, managers in certain industries may find the research particularly important. "For example, consulting firms have very large differences in culture and strategy and mission. It can be very difficult to overcome the years of acculturation you get from one firm."

The transition between companies is an increasingly important issue for employers and workers. In the late 1970s, Americans were estimated to have an average of seven employers during their working years. By 2005, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found the average American worker born in the later years of the baby boom had 10.5 employers by age 40.

The research team reviewed the work history of more than 7,200 employees and applicants to explore the relationships between prior experience and productivity. Their findings show a strong relationship between prior experience and knowledge and skills on the job. At the same time, however, the models indicate that prior experience does not always signal increased productivity.

A Factor in Reviews: 'Cultural Fit'

Beyond those results, the researchers were able to examine employment reviews to delve into the question of individual employee adaptability and the impact on productivity. Supervisors rated employees on adaptability. The researchers found that people who were more adaptable did not reflect a negative relationship between prior experience and effectiveness on the job.

The authors also looked at "cultural fit" within the organization. For employees who felt they fit into the culture of the firm, the negative effects of prior experience in the occupation are not pronounced. For employees who said they did not fit well into the organization, there was a significant indication of the negative effect of prior "baggage."

Rothbard says the research findings are important not only in light of the increasingly mobile workforce, but also because so many companies are in a constant state of change themselves. "If your business has changed, you need to consider trying to retool people, not just in terms of their skills, but in terms of their values," Rothbard suggests. "Not that people can't shed these things. But it may take more training and socialization than you" first expected.

According to Rothbard, companies may want to use a mentoring program to help employees from similar companies readjust to the culture and mores of their new firm. "I know it seems odd that if you hire someone with experience to then say, 'Here's your mentor,'" Rothbard acknowledges. "But maybe they need a mentor for the values of the company, not so much the skills needed for the job."

Rothbard says that when companies hire employees with experience, they tend to rely on that experience as a substitute for training. "Maybe they pay more for those people and invest less in training, but we suggest that might be a mistake. You really need to think carefully about your training and socialization to mitigate the negative effects of the trouble people have transferring the way they think about how the job is done."

Finally the researchers used the data to gain insights into the role of cross-company transfers of skills, as well as cultural baggage, on long-term careers. The research indicates that the advantage of prior task-relevant knowledge and skills diminishes the longer an employee stays at the new firm.

"Over time as individuals become socialized into the new firm, the amount of prior work experience they brought with them matters less for the skills they demonstrate on the job," says Rothbard. "However, the negative direct relationship between prior work experience and performance does not diminish as much, suggesting that the norms and values people bring with them may persist quite substantially."

The new research findings should help companies develop hiring and training strategies that fit well with their own culture, Rothbard adds.

"If you have a strong culture and a clear strategy in doing things that differ from your competitor, you may want to think carefully about whether you want to hire for experience or whether you want to hire people with less experience and invest more in training them in your model," Rothbard advises. "If your competitive advantage is the culture of your company, you want to be careful about bringing in people with a long tenure in their occupation or industry and think about how that prior experience is going to bring positives as well as negatives to the firm."