A company's corporate culture results from a series of choices made.  It is not accidental.  How the company treats its employees and customers, how dissent and dissatisfaction are handled, openness of communications, employee continuing education practices, and leadership philosophies are some of the choices made which result in the company's culture.  Failure to act is a choice just as much as action is.  If employee complaints are systematically ignored, that failure to act becomes part of the culture of a company.  Also remember, perception is everything.  If your grievance process is generally perceived to be unfair and one-sided, for example, investigate why and take action accordingly. Maybe further training is needed, maybe the process itself needs to be revamped.  Regularly monitor the effectiveness of corporate policies and also whether those great-sounding policies are consistently implemented and work as intended.

I believe there can be an overall corporate culture but also micro-cultures within the organization which can sometimes be at odds with the organization's general culture and philosophies.  Different managers have different styles.  An employee's work experiences are most directly affected by their interactions with immediate and proximate supervision.  The CEO of a large corporation may be a fantastic person and manager but some first level supervisor in another location or department of the company may not.  Top-notch selection processes and proper managing of managers at all levels is important.  Think about what type of corporate culture you want as a leader, then act and hold others to those same standards.
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

In the workplace, it all starts with hiring the right people for your company.  Thus, you must first decide what you are really looking for to fill that open position.  When you state in your job announcement "3-5 years experience required," how did you determine two years of experience was not enough and seven years was too much?  When you state, "must be in top ten percent of your graduating class,"  does that requirement truly make sense for your position?  Is someone's gpa thirty years ago pertinent to job performance now?  Do you really need a Rhodes Scholar to perform the advertised position?  In other words, are these criteria predictive of successful job performance or are you overlooking some exceptional candidates who may not have graduated from Harvard or have quite the number of years experience you seek in precisely the subject area you claim to need.  Are you looking for a "mythical candidate" with idealized attributes that sound nice on paper but you aren't going to find, let alone need or be able to afford, anyway?  And are some of these criteria just a product of lack of thought about what really predicts job performance?

If you are hiring for an entry-level position, just say so.  If you are looking for an experienced person in a highly technical area who needs to be ready to go, figure out whether that is really true and say so.  It is okay and acceptable to provide some on-the-job training.  Make a commitment to your people and their continuing education.  

Also, don't just rely on a resume screening software program for all your hiring needs.  You are likely missing out on great candidates who simply didn't have the correct keyword on their resume and got automatically screened out.  Everything cannot be done by a machine.  Take the time to explore what qualities your company really needs for the position.  What qualities and qualifications do the exceptional employees in your current positions have?  Is a college degree needed? Are creativity and flexibility important?  Are highly developed written and oral communication skills needed? Is teamwork important?  Can an exceptional individual with most, but not all of your "ideal" qualifications, be easily and quickly trained to become extraordinary?  Talk to the hiring manager before writing the job announcement as well as successful current employees in the position.  Take the time to do it right, put some thought into it, and keep it real.
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html   

Whether a noncompete is beneficial or not depends on which side of the table you sit.  In my opinion, it is only beneficial to employers, not to employees unless maybe you receive a very substantial payment for signing it, which is rarely if ever the case.  After all, a noncompete restricts the employee's ability to work within a certain geographical area for a specific contractually agreed-upon period of time, typically anywhere from six months to three years.  In some states you don't have to offer anything to an employee in exchange for signing a noncompete agreement other than a job, even an employment-at-will position suffices in some jurisdictions.  Obviously, drafting a valid noncompete can be very beneficial to employers.  How many employees stay with a company for their entire career?  No matter the great intentions of each side when the employment relationship begins, things can go downhill.  Even if that doesn't happen, many employees leave at some point, for any of a multitude of reasons.  

There has to be a valid business interest to protect, among various other requirements for a valid noncompete.  Thus, requiring your cashier to sign a noncompete isn't likely to get you any legal protection nor should it.  As an employee, if you feel you are stuck having to sign a noncompete (question yourself whether you really are stuck), have a qualified attorney review it before signing (it is truly amazing how often people just sign what is presented without even reading it, let alone seeking legal review). Negotiate it to the least restrictive terms and conditions possible (things like the narrowest possible time window, narrowest geographical restriction, etc.).  I have yet to meet an ex-employee who was happy he/she had signed a noncompete.  Sometimes you can negotiate a release from the noncompete when the employment relationship ends, but that will cost you money just in attorney fees alone.  If you have to defend a lawsuit alleging your breach of a noncompete, it costs significant money even if you win.  Think before you sign, read before you sign, negotiate before you sign, and get legal advice before you sign.  It really is that simple.  
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

Which is more desirable to you--trying to work out workplace disputes between yourself and your unhappy employee (or ex-employee) or having a result imposed on you by a judge or jury? There is a time and place for full-scale litigation but, as the employer/defendant, you are always on the losing side.  Even if you win the case.  If you defeat the plaintiff, your company will still pay attorney fees to defend the case, sometimes staggering fees.  Then, if you lose, you may also be forced to pay attorney fees to the plaintiff (many employment statutes require this) plus the judgement itself, interest and court costs for you and the plaintiff.  Also, don't forget to factor in all the lost time and energy spent by your company and employees in preparing for and participating in the litigation, which can take years.  

Consider mediation as early as possible in litigation or threatened litigation.  Mediation is a non-binding process where a neutral party (the mediator) tries to help both sides come to a voluntary resolution of their dispute.  It helps to hire a highly qualified mediator, preferably with experience in employment law or in resolving employment disputes.  I generally recommend mediation as early as possible, before the parties become overly entrenched in their positions and before fees and expenses start mounting.  

In the end, isn't it better to put disputes behind you if possible and focus only on the true mission of the company? 
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html