Communication has always been a hot topic for me. It always will be. Recently an acquaintance asked for input to a situation she was struggling with. She asked the question, "Why is it that when a woman is assertive she is considered a bitch?" Good question.
With that question asked, let's look at "gender" privilege for a moment. Why is it that a man can speak more forcefully and yet a woman is not afforded the same privilege? Oftentimes the woman will be labeled as pushy, abrasive or a bitch. How can a woman be strong and assertive, and yet avoid creating a negative or poor reputation for herself? Are women being stereotyped? Yes, in some instances they are and it's unfortunate. Is there privilege associated with speaking forcefully?
In a 2009 Psychology Today article titled "Assertive or Aggressive - Are Men Assertive and Woman Aggressive?" Gabriela Cora states "This is the quintessential question. We tend to say a man is aggressive when he's about to strike at his opponent's jugular while many refer to women who assert themselves as aggressive, instead. Is this a double standard?"
Stereotyping and gender privilege aside, let's talk about communication styles. A thin line exists between being assertive and being aggressive. Assertiveness is the ability to express our desires and opinions in a FIRM YET RESPECTFUL manner. Aggressiveness is FORCING your thoughts and ideas on another person in a bullying manner. Unfortunately, some people view assertiveness and aggressiveness as the same.
Assertiveness is firm, but polite.
Speak in courteous, conversational tone.
Friendly eye contact.
Open and relaxed body language
Considers others feelings
Participative group behavior
Aggressiveness is firm, but impolite.
Speaking using loud, intrusive tones.
Glares
Rigid body language
Considers self only
Controlling group behavior
Often people think they are acting assertively when they are really acting aggressively. That mistake is often accidental. People are simply trying to have their needs met.
Remember, being assertive isn't the same as being rude. It's about letting people know what you need, and what work needs to be done, in a direct way. Workplaces are a melting pot of communication styles and personalities. Miscommunication can happen quickly and easily. As a woman (or a man) we need to be aware of how we communicate. We need to modify our message to our target audience or to the culture of our organization.
Patience must be developed, human nature must be considered. There must always be a space between listening and reacting.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Interns: Paid or Unpaid?
Summer has arrived and companies everywhere are looking for interns. When hiring interns, how do companies know if they have hired a true intern or an employee who should be, at least, receiving minimum wage?
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that employees be paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked. The FLSA excludes from coverage those persons who work for another for their own advantage such as an unpaid internship. The DOL has developed a six factor test for determining whether an internship qualifies for unpaid status. The factors include:
1. Whether the internship, even though including actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2. Whether the internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3. Whether the intern displaces regular employees, and works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. Whether the employer providing the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. Whether the intern is entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship;
6. Whether the intern understands that he is not entitled to wages for the time spent on the internship.
If the internship meets all six factors, it may qualify for unpaid status. However, the DOL takes a very narrow view of this exemption and believes that very few "for profit" employers can properly offer these programs. The DOL has published a Fact Sheet on Internship Programs under the FLSA.
To be compliant, the focus of an internship program should be mentoring and exposing interns to real-life experience versus having them produce a certain amount of work.
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that employees be paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked. The FLSA excludes from coverage those persons who work for another for their own advantage such as an unpaid internship. The DOL has developed a six factor test for determining whether an internship qualifies for unpaid status. The factors include:
1. Whether the internship, even though including actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2. Whether the internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3. Whether the intern displaces regular employees, and works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. Whether the employer providing the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. Whether the intern is entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship;
6. Whether the intern understands that he is not entitled to wages for the time spent on the internship.
If the internship meets all six factors, it may qualify for unpaid status. However, the DOL takes a very narrow view of this exemption and believes that very few "for profit" employers can properly offer these programs. The DOL has published a Fact Sheet on Internship Programs under the FLSA.
To be compliant, the focus of an internship program should be mentoring and exposing interns to real-life experience versus having them produce a certain amount of work.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Different Probation Periods for Different Employees?
Can a manager set different probation periods for different employees? Or is it discrimination?
Here's a situation a lot of HR managers face:
You have two low-performing employees. One is white and the other is non-white. You and their managers want to place the employees on a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). While on a PIP the employees have a set amount of time, 90 days for instance, in which to correct any performance (or other) issues.
The manager of the white employee wants to give the employee the full 90 days. The manager of the non-white employee decides, prior to the end of the 90 days, to terminate the employee.
Is this discrimination?
This is a difficult situation. To avoid charges of discrimination, here's a bit of guidance:
1. You're okay if, when deciding on probation periods, you set different ones for different employees. Not all employees are the same and you may have good business reasons for setting different periods. For example, it may be crucial for an employee to get up to speed quickly on an urgent project, while progress by the second employee may not be so urgent.
2. Even if you set the same time frame on the PIPs, you're not stuck with them IF you stipulate in the PIP that lack of progress on the part of the employee can cause the time to be cut short. As a manager, if during a 90 day PIP you see little progress after 60 days and you recommend termination, ensure that information is clearly spelled out in the PIP paperwork.
Here's a situation a lot of HR managers face:
You have two low-performing employees. One is white and the other is non-white. You and their managers want to place the employees on a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). While on a PIP the employees have a set amount of time, 90 days for instance, in which to correct any performance (or other) issues.
The manager of the white employee wants to give the employee the full 90 days. The manager of the non-white employee decides, prior to the end of the 90 days, to terminate the employee.
Is this discrimination?
This is a difficult situation. To avoid charges of discrimination, here's a bit of guidance:
1. You're okay if, when deciding on probation periods, you set different ones for different employees. Not all employees are the same and you may have good business reasons for setting different periods. For example, it may be crucial for an employee to get up to speed quickly on an urgent project, while progress by the second employee may not be so urgent.
2. Even if you set the same time frame on the PIPs, you're not stuck with them IF you stipulate in the PIP that lack of progress on the part of the employee can cause the time to be cut short. As a manager, if during a 90 day PIP you see little progress after 60 days and you recommend termination, ensure that information is clearly spelled out in the PIP paperwork.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Where Have All The Leaders Gone?
We all have one person in our lives that has been instrumental in placing our feet upon a new career path. Mine was a gentleman by the name of C.R. "Neil" Duarte. I had the privilege of working for Neil when he was the President of Thermo Flow Systems. During my time at Thermo, Neil taught me to stand up for what I believe in and speak out for those that couldn't. As a result of his support and encouragement, I moved fully into the field of HR.
Neil was kind enough to send me a copy of his article "Where Have All The Leaders Gone" that was published in the Houston Business Journal. The below isn't the entire article, but I did want to take the time to share his words of wisdom.
"What are the characteristics of a true leader? That subject has been debated for centuries by some of the brightest minds in a variety of fields. Little if any consensus exists today. In fact, there is not one field of specialization in business academia devoted to the subject of leadership as there is to finance, accounting and other traditional subjects. Many people believe the old saying that leaders are born, not made. While there are some aspects of being a great leader that appear to be beyond the control of the individual, I believe that many characteristics that are essential to becoming a true leader can be learned or at the least greatly improved upon by study and observation."
In Neil's article, he goes on to reference a 2001 publication "Geeks and Geezers: How Era, Values and Defining Moments Shape Leaders" by Professor Warren Bennis of Harvard and former MIT Professor Robert Thomas. In this book, the authors identified four common traits that are essential in a leadership role.
In Neil's own words, "While I fully support the four traits described by Bennis and Thomas, I would add a fifth - acceptance of responsibility. True leaders do not hesitate to accept responsibility for whatever happens under them. Those fortunate enough to work under a true leader know that the leader will insure that due credit is given to those under that leader for any success that occurs. Whatever problems occur, no matter how serious they may be, the leader will accept full responsibility. He will not attempt to pass the blame to those under his supervision.
In business today I believe that too many corporations have confused leaders with managers. Managers tend to look at all people and things under them simply as different types of assets, animate and inanimate. Only numbers are important to them. In stark contrast, leaders understand that their people are the most important part of their job and treat their employees as such. Leaders, though no less afraid than managers, speak the truth both inside and outside of the corporation, no matter how unpopular that might be.
The current malaise in American industry will end when everyone involved with business, including corporate boards, Wall Street and investors, demands that those elevated to positions of corporate leadership truly be leaders. Inherent in this process is that all learn to accept the bad news as well as the good news."
Thank you Neil for your never ending support and pearls of wisdom.
Neil was kind enough to send me a copy of his article "Where Have All The Leaders Gone" that was published in the Houston Business Journal. The below isn't the entire article, but I did want to take the time to share his words of wisdom.
"What are the characteristics of a true leader? That subject has been debated for centuries by some of the brightest minds in a variety of fields. Little if any consensus exists today. In fact, there is not one field of specialization in business academia devoted to the subject of leadership as there is to finance, accounting and other traditional subjects. Many people believe the old saying that leaders are born, not made. While there are some aspects of being a great leader that appear to be beyond the control of the individual, I believe that many characteristics that are essential to becoming a true leader can be learned or at the least greatly improved upon by study and observation."
In Neil's article, he goes on to reference a 2001 publication "Geeks and Geezers: How Era, Values and Defining Moments Shape Leaders" by Professor Warren Bennis of Harvard and former MIT Professor Robert Thomas. In this book, the authors identified four common traits that are essential in a leadership role.
In Neil's own words, "While I fully support the four traits described by Bennis and Thomas, I would add a fifth - acceptance of responsibility. True leaders do not hesitate to accept responsibility for whatever happens under them. Those fortunate enough to work under a true leader know that the leader will insure that due credit is given to those under that leader for any success that occurs. Whatever problems occur, no matter how serious they may be, the leader will accept full responsibility. He will not attempt to pass the blame to those under his supervision.
In business today I believe that too many corporations have confused leaders with managers. Managers tend to look at all people and things under them simply as different types of assets, animate and inanimate. Only numbers are important to them. In stark contrast, leaders understand that their people are the most important part of their job and treat their employees as such. Leaders, though no less afraid than managers, speak the truth both inside and outside of the corporation, no matter how unpopular that might be.
The current malaise in American industry will end when everyone involved with business, including corporate boards, Wall Street and investors, demands that those elevated to positions of corporate leadership truly be leaders. Inherent in this process is that all learn to accept the bad news as well as the good news."
Thank you Neil for your never ending support and pearls of wisdom.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Nonsense of Being Overqualified
Recruiting is a difficult job, in any market. In today's economy there's an increased volume of applicants vying for the same position. With layoffs and high unemployment there are high-quality people now available among the ranks of the unemployed.
There is a myth out there in the business world that hiring overqualified candidates for a position is a bad business move. Why? Well, it's a common belief that overqualified employees won't be happy in their job. They will be frustrated, bored, unhappy with their pay, and will take the first new opportunity that comes along. As a result of this myth, oftentimes recruiters / hiring managers won't even consider a candidate that they feel is overqualified.
How about a different perspective?
We loose sight that there are times when employees reach a point in their career where they simply may wish to take a step back. Perhaps they wish to eliminate some of the stress and demands of those loftier positions. Perhaps they are looking for more balance in their life.
When recruiting, I believe that each applicant should stand on their own merit. Candidates viewed as overqualified may bring knowledge on how to accomplish tasks, or greater efficiencies into an organization. This experience is of benefit to the organization, a wealth of new knowledge and experience. A manager or recruiter who refuses to consider anyone with more qualifications than are required for a position are too likely to hire someone who is under-qualified. Maybe the individual isn't overqualified but fully qualified? Is there a problem with someone doing a job better than expected? Would you rather a candidate be under-qualified?
When interviewing candidates for any position the goal should be to hire the best person for the job. Experience is only one factor that should be considered.
A recent post by Amy Gallo on the Harvard Business Review blog makes a case for taking such a risk. A challenge is posed: "When making hiring decisions, visionary leaders don't just focus on the current needs, but on the future." An overqualified employee may be a problem solver, a facilitator. In Amy's words they may "mentor others, challenge peers to exceed current expectations, and bring areas of expertise that are not represented at the company."
With any employee there is always a potential for a retention issue. Any employee may loose focus or interest. If an individual is overqualified, is there a greater risk of them leaving because their position lacks a challenge? I propose that two questions be asked.
The first is for the candidate, "Will you be happy here for xx amount of time?" With any candidate, ensure the the individual isn't taking the job simply because they need a job. You don't want someone that simply needs a short-term band aid.
Ask yourself the second question, "can the company nurture the employee?"
In closing, finding the right "fit" is always a challenge. What is a true fit? Well, it's that alignment between the job requirements and the skills and interest of the candidate. Sometimes that right "fit" may be that candidate you feel is overqualified.
There is a myth out there in the business world that hiring overqualified candidates for a position is a bad business move. Why? Well, it's a common belief that overqualified employees won't be happy in their job. They will be frustrated, bored, unhappy with their pay, and will take the first new opportunity that comes along. As a result of this myth, oftentimes recruiters / hiring managers won't even consider a candidate that they feel is overqualified.
How about a different perspective?
We loose sight that there are times when employees reach a point in their career where they simply may wish to take a step back. Perhaps they wish to eliminate some of the stress and demands of those loftier positions. Perhaps they are looking for more balance in their life.
When recruiting, I believe that each applicant should stand on their own merit. Candidates viewed as overqualified may bring knowledge on how to accomplish tasks, or greater efficiencies into an organization. This experience is of benefit to the organization, a wealth of new knowledge and experience. A manager or recruiter who refuses to consider anyone with more qualifications than are required for a position are too likely to hire someone who is under-qualified. Maybe the individual isn't overqualified but fully qualified? Is there a problem with someone doing a job better than expected? Would you rather a candidate be under-qualified?
When interviewing candidates for any position the goal should be to hire the best person for the job. Experience is only one factor that should be considered.
A recent post by Amy Gallo on the Harvard Business Review blog makes a case for taking such a risk. A challenge is posed: "When making hiring decisions, visionary leaders don't just focus on the current needs, but on the future." An overqualified employee may be a problem solver, a facilitator. In Amy's words they may "mentor others, challenge peers to exceed current expectations, and bring areas of expertise that are not represented at the company."
With any employee there is always a potential for a retention issue. Any employee may loose focus or interest. If an individual is overqualified, is there a greater risk of them leaving because their position lacks a challenge? I propose that two questions be asked.
The first is for the candidate, "Will you be happy here for xx amount of time?" With any candidate, ensure the the individual isn't taking the job simply because they need a job. You don't want someone that simply needs a short-term band aid.
Ask yourself the second question, "can the company nurture the employee?"
In closing, finding the right "fit" is always a challenge. What is a true fit? Well, it's that alignment between the job requirements and the skills and interest of the candidate. Sometimes that right "fit" may be that candidate you feel is overqualified.
Friday, June 3, 2011
50 Ways a Manager Can Get Employees to Quit
Yeah, you read the title right. For just a moment let's talk about bad managers. They can demotivate employees. They can kill morale. They can kill productivity.
The other day, while surfing the Internet, I ran across this blog entry at www.dumblittleman.com. While the blog entry initially made me smile, after reflecting for a moment that smile turned to a grimace.
I'm not going to post the entire list of 50 from the blog. What you see below are the top 10 violations that I have seen in many organizations. My personal favorite violation, while not on the list below, was a manager who never looked up from her computer when having a discussion with an employee. From her perspective she was "multi-tasking" which wasn't rude, but actually efficient.
How many of these have you seen in your organization? Are you guilty of these yourself and you're just not aware of it?
1. Avoid looking people in the eye.
2. You know that Tony is a slacker, but he is really cool to hang out with so keep him around and give him really good reviews.
3. You never cross train anybody on anything. The skills they walked in with are the skills they are leaving with.
4. Mandate a new policy without consulting a single person that will have to live with it.
5. Talk more than you listen.
6. Always take sides in disputes instead of moderating.
7. Buy the team lunch and always forget that Vegan in the corner. . . he'll come around.
8. Call the redhead guy on the team Rusty. Everyone will laugh and you are sure to win their hearts.
9. Consistency is good. Never ask your employees if they are challenged enough or want to take on more responsibility.
10. Suzy can take 20 minute breaks instead of 10 because she's a little cuter than Paul.
Do any of the above sound familiar? I hope not!!
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Why Do Employees Stay?
In the last blog I addressed Employee Satisfaction. I'd like to continue with that discussion by asking the question "why do employees stay?"
Oftentimes employers aren't aware that an employee is unhappy with their job, until the unthinkable happens. The employee resigns. In some instances this employee may be critical to your team and your business. By critical, I mean those employees that are good and talented employees that you just simply can't afford to loose.
While organizations should spend time, money and energy on programs to help increase employee satisfaction, and in the long run retain talent, there is one obvious retention strategy that is often overlooked - COMMUNICATION. Has anyone in your organization asked the employees why they stay? Asked what may entice the employees to leave the organization? Asking an employee these questions may make the employee feel cared about, valued and important. This may, in turn, lead to stronger loyalty and commitment. Remember, employees know what they want and it's not always money.
How or when do you ask these questions?
1. Let's start with 1:1 conversations between the manager and the employee. A word of caution, managers should actively listen to the employee. Ensure that responses are supportive so that the dialog will continue.
2. If managers are uncomfortable with direct questions, ask the employee to write down 2 - 3 major reasons why he/she stays with the organization.
3. Alternatively, hold an employee satisfaction survey.
In all circumstances, make notes on what keeps your employees. Review those notes at least monthly to ensure that the organization is taking the steps necessary to retain the employee. If you know what your employees need, you can partner with them to find those opportunities inside the company.
Don't wait to ask these questions during an exit interview. At that point, it's too late!
Oftentimes employers aren't aware that an employee is unhappy with their job, until the unthinkable happens. The employee resigns. In some instances this employee may be critical to your team and your business. By critical, I mean those employees that are good and talented employees that you just simply can't afford to loose.
While organizations should spend time, money and energy on programs to help increase employee satisfaction, and in the long run retain talent, there is one obvious retention strategy that is often overlooked - COMMUNICATION. Has anyone in your organization asked the employees why they stay? Asked what may entice the employees to leave the organization? Asking an employee these questions may make the employee feel cared about, valued and important. This may, in turn, lead to stronger loyalty and commitment. Remember, employees know what they want and it's not always money.
How or when do you ask these questions?
1. Let's start with 1:1 conversations between the manager and the employee. A word of caution, managers should actively listen to the employee. Ensure that responses are supportive so that the dialog will continue.
2. If managers are uncomfortable with direct questions, ask the employee to write down 2 - 3 major reasons why he/she stays with the organization.
3. Alternatively, hold an employee satisfaction survey.
In all circumstances, make notes on what keeps your employees. Review those notes at least monthly to ensure that the organization is taking the steps necessary to retain the employee. If you know what your employees need, you can partner with them to find those opportunities inside the company.
Don't wait to ask these questions during an exit interview. At that point, it's too late!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)