This just in from SHRM . . .

In a survey of more than 7,500 workers on four continents, 75% said they trust their immediate boss, compared with just 60% who trust their organization’s senior leaders.  The split is greatest among employees in the United States, Canada and Mexico, with 75% trusting their own managers vs. only about half trusting senior management.  The survey results were released this past summer and was conducted by HR consultancy BlessingWhite. Two thirds of respondents were in North America and India; others were from Europe, Asia and Australia.

So what this data should tell us is that employees know and interact daily with their immediate supervisor and this firsthand knowledge and familiarity builds trust. On the other hand senior executives are often perceived as distant and saying one thing and doing another.

Why this is important is because when organizations are facing a challenging economic environment, the companies who have more trust built up between senior management and employees will be able to respond more productively and effectively because employees feel better informed and engaged.

A recent study by Harvard and Cornell law professors concludes that the federal courts are a less-than-friendly place for employment law plaintiffs.  The study, looking at federal court data from 1979 on, determined that employment discrimination plaintiffs won only about 30% of federal jury trials, compared to a 45% success rate for other plaintiffs.  In bench trials (judge, not jury as decider), job bias plaintiffs won only 20% of the time.  Plaintiffs fared even worse on appeal, as plaintiff verdicts were reversed about 40% of the time and plaintiffs got reversals of their defeats only about 10% of the time.  Plaintiffs in non-employment cases did better on appeal.  The authors of the study conclude that because of these types of statistics, Plaintiffs are filing their claims more often in state courts.  Although charges brought to the EEOC have increased or remained steady, there has been a 37% drop in employment lawsuits filed in federal court over the last eight years.  The lesson for employers?  Don’t get sued.  If you get sued, make sure you try to move it to federal court.

You probably read about the tragic crash last month of a commuter train and a freight train in California, an accident that left 25 people dead and more than 130 persons injured.  Although the investigation into the collision continues, news reports indicate that one of the possible causes of it was that the commuter train engineer was sending text messages on his cell phone, perhaps instead of paying attention to operating the train.  This event should be a not-so-subtle reminder to employers of the hazards of allowing employees to text or talk on cell phones while driving or operating equipment. 

If an employee must drive or operate equipment as part of his/her job and the employer encourages or allows the employee to engage in distracting behavior (cell phone use, texting, operation of a laptop computer, etc.) at the same time, the employer may be held liable for any accidents that occur possibly due to the distraction.  To try to reduce the risk of liability, employers should address these issues in policies, train employees about the same and enforce the rules.

The following information is republished from Marnie Green’s October e-newsletter.
For an excellent source of information on Employee Performance and Talent Management subscribe to Marnie’s monthly e-newsletter at: http://www.managementeducationgroup.com/index.php

Performance evaluations are one of those things we just do in organizations. And often we don’t really know why the heck we’re doing them. I recently asked a group of employees why we do performance evaluations. I asked, “Why do we bother to design fancy forms, conduct training, and write policies for performance evaluations?” The group of 25 just stared at me. One guy finally spoke up and said, “Is it to determine our pay?” When I asked whether his pay was determined by his annual performance evaluation, he said, “Well no, not really.” Clearly we had some work to do.

Performance evaluations can have valuable, meaningful outcomes, for employees as well as for organizations. Still, many organizations are missing the point. We become so clouded by process, rules, forms, and steps that everyone, including the HR folks, loses sight of why we do performance evaluations in the first place. Why does your organization do performance evaluations? Here are some possible reasons:

· To align organization’s goals with individual employee goals
· To determine pay adjustments
· To reinforce organizational values
· To document performance in case of a legal challenge
· To provide professional or career development

The list goes on and on. And as our list of reasons for performance evaluations grows, we often make the process much too complicated. Have you and your organization lost focus?

Take some time to think about what your organization is attempting to accomplish with performance evaluations. Is your system meeting your expectations? Is the return on the performance evaluation process greater than the time and energy that is put into it? Are you expecting too much from it?

There are many possible answers to my question, “Why do we do performance evaluations?” but I’d like to suggest that the most important reason we do them is to enhance communication between managers and employees. When we try to make the process more complicated, it loses its value.

We had an unbelieveable turnout and quite positive feedback for Jerry’s HR industry webinar that took place yesterday titled: “Linking Compensation and Performance Management”.  For those who were not able to attend and would like to view the slides . . . you can receive a copy of the presentation if you email me at: paul@hrnonline.com and request the file.

Our next HR industry HR webinar will be on the topic of Workplace Harassment. Stand by for more information.

Is it okay to allow even minor racial comments, crude or sexual jokes or similar derogatory behaviors at the workplace if nobody objects? One of the risks of including verbage in anti-harassment workplace conduct policies such as, “is unwelcome” is that it conveys the impression that the company condones such conduct until such time that it offends someone and only then must it stop.

Another flaw in this ill-conceived lithmus test of offensiveness is its’ reliance on the notion that all employees are comfortable speaking up if something they overhear, read in an email, or is said to them is offensive. Many employees are not comfortable being the whistle blower especially if they are a new employee or in any kind of workplace staff minority.

In February 2008 a telephone survey conducted by Novations  Group, a Boston-based consulting firm, found that 45% of men and 38% of women heard sexually inappropriate comments at work in 2007. The survey found that 38% of employees between the ages of 18 and 34 heard age-related ridicule while only 16% of those over age 55 heard such ridicule. This data suggests that employees are more likely to make innappropriate remarks when in the presence of those least likely to take personal offense.

Employees who make these inappropriate remarks might assume they would not be subject to discipline if the group they are associating with do not take offense at such remarks. So should managers intervene to stop such behaviors? Absolutely, and here is why. By not taking action to stop any conduct that could be considered degrading based on sex, race, or another statutorily protected characteristic a manager, and by extension, the company is seen as endorsing bias and creating a potentially hostile work environment.

If an employee pursues a harassment claim against the organization, that claim will more likely succeed with evidence that managers were aware of but failed to stop discriminatory remarks or behaviors in the workplace even if that conduct was not directed at the employee.

The bottom line is don’t wait for a complaint to intervene and stop any occurence of conduct that could test the definition of workplace harassment. A policy isn’t enough. Be the example and step in. Don’t let the joke be on you or your company.

Source:  HR Magazine, September 2008, Not Funny - Remove the Welcome Mat for Inapporpriate Jokes, by Elaine Herskowitz

This posting is part two of two - See Monday, 9/22 for part one.

What’s Been Changed?
1.  The definition of “disability” must be broadly interpreted in the future.  The Amendments strongly state that “the Act shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals…to the maximum extent permitted….”

2.  The definition of “major life activity” is expanded.  Before the Amendments the ADA did not specify examples of major life activities.  The Amendments define major life activities to include, but not limited to:  caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking ,standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. Additionally, the Amendments add new major life activities that involve “major bodily functions.”  Those functions include such things as “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.  Major life activities just got a whole lot more inclusive.

(more…)

This posting is part one of two - Check back on Wednesday, 9/24 for part two.

Congress has passed the The ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  The Act, which received final Congressional approval on September 17, will significantly expand coverage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  President Bush has indicated that he will sign the bill which is effective on January 1, 2009.  The legislation was in response to criticism of court decisions that excluded many individuals who it was thought should be covered under the ADA.

The new law will undoubtedly increase the number of individuals protected under the ADA and likely spur more litigation.  It also will require changes by employers to ensure compliance and avoid time consuming and costly employee complaints and lawsuits.The ADA applies to organizations with 15 or more employees, including part time and temporary workers. You’ll remember that under the ADA an individual may be considered to have a “disability” if she,

1.       Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;

2.       Has a record of such impairment; or

3.       Is regarded as having such an impairment.

Among other things, the new law will change how these disability definitions will be interpreted and applied.

 Check back Wednesday to see specifically what’s been changed.

It makes sense to think that an organizations top performance priority would receive proportionally allocated funding to achieve its mission. I’m in marketing and my top priority objective is lead generation. Therefore it should come as no surprise that when I prepare a strategic plan and budget forecast that the largest wedge of budget pie sought is to fund lead generation initiatives. That just makes sense.

That’s why the results of a recent HR priority vs. funding survey from BNA took me by surprise. Why would human resources priority vs budget allocation equation be any different?

Case in point: Recruiting and Retention. Human resources executives most commonly cite their department’s performance in recruiting and retaining employees as the primary factor in how top management evaluates HR’s contribution to the organization. But despite the importance assigned to recruiting, budgets are stagnant and the systems deployed are often inadequate.

(more…)