Some employers seek mythical employees, desiring people with no personal lives or outside interests, with top-notch educations but willing to work for jobs paying little money, minimal benefits, and arduous hours. And they need to be in perfect health at all times and never question authority.  In other words, robots.

The other side of this is the mythical employer.  This includes those applicants and employees who want to work for employers doing whatever work pleases them and is fun, in only the way they wish to perform the work, at their own pace and schedule with no deadlines or pressure, all in exchange for large sums of money and lots of vacation.  In other words, dreamers and the slightly delusional.  

Somewhere between these two extremes is reality.  Employers have the right to expect best efforts from their employees but at a fair rate of compensation given each individual's education, training, experience, and performance.  In other words, a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.  Employees have the additional rights to be treated respectfully, valued members of the team, with the employer's understanding that we are all human and imperfect.  Each side needs the other to achieve true success.  Let's all dream big, continually improve through time and effort, but still have realistic expectations of each other. 
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html   

 

Most of us have seen the classic Saturday Night Live skit with Will Ferrell and Christopher Walken in which Walken's character, a music producer, tells Ferrell's musician character that the band's song needs more cowbell.  "I have a fever. And the only prescription is more cowbell."  How many of you feel your company could use a little more zip, a little more flavor, even just some spark of life and personality?

Various workplace polls show that many employees, even a majority, are disengaged at work to a greater or lesser degree.  Poor selection practices, little commitment to employee development, retention of poor managers and other poor performers, inadequate appreciation of good employees, little to no commitment to retaining good employees, mind-numbing work, the list goes on.  If you find yourself in a dysfunctional company, don't stick around forever hoping things will magically get better.  Find a place where your contributions are valued and you are viewed as an important member of the team, a place you are grateful to be, with an employer who is equally grateful to have you there.  If you are in a leadership position, create a workplace with some personality and respect for others, regardless of their position.  Everybody's position is important to the success of the organization.    

As an employer, review your retention program, your hiring process, your training and mentoring programs, your grievance processes, the quality and accuracy of communications, your employee reward and recognition programs.  If employees are not engaged, find out why.  It could be a simple fix.  Maybe you expect too many hours from your workers and they are worn out.  Maybe you don't challenge your best employees enough to stay but you could if you were a little more creative or paid people what they are worth.  All work is somewhat routine and can become monotonous but there are often things you can do to add a little more cowbell to your organization.  Who couldn't use a little more cowbell really?
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

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

Investigating employee complaints may or may not be your favorite duty but it is inevitable if you work in human resources.  Is the complaint legitimate, partially legitimate, total hogwash?  It's your job to find out, unless you hire a lawyer to do the investigation, which may be advisable, particularly in sticky or complex situations. You need to get the story from the complaining party first, ask whether there are witnesses or other evidence, decide whether you want the complaint in writing or not, etc.  Then, you need to interview the party complained about, while trying to maintain confidentiality.  If there are disagreements between the two stories (usually there is, but not always or not completely), you may need to talk to witnesses, those identified by the grievant and often some others, including witnesses identified by the party complained about and often other independent witnesses.  Is someone's best friend a reliable witness?  Does someone have an agenda other than the truth?  What is the given person's track record regarding honesty?  These are the types of things that you may need to be thinking about, just like a police detective.  Document gathering and review is often required as well and, in some cases, can be dispositive.  In addition, complaints need to be investigated promptly or you will have additional problems under the law.

It is easy to jump to conclusions after hearing the complaint.  But, follow a thorough investigation process with an open mind.  Most times, you should be able to determine the truth, very rarely are the results of the investigation indeterminate.  You may need to take some disciplinary action all the way through termination if the complaint has merit and should also talk again to the complaining party thanking him/her for the complaint and describing very briefly your conclusion.  Give a reminder that retaliation for making a complaint is not allowed under company policy and that any retaliation should be immediately reported.  You may need to follow up with the complaining party later to make sure things are going well at work.    

Get some guidance from an attorney on these matters.  Be thorough, professional, and unbiased.  Your investigative work may come under legal scrutiny later, always remember that.  Different situations may call for different investigative techniques and investigators.  As with all things, there is no paint by numbers approach here.  A well-functioning internal grievance and investigative process is an invaluable aid in avoiding or at least minimizing litigation and just makes good sense from a business, company culture, and human resources point of view.  Go forth as highly skilled workplace detectives.  Get to the bottom of the matter but maybe not in quite the same manner or dress as Ace Ventura! http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html       

 



 

One thing that has always perplexed and saddened me is the person who brags about how many hours they work or how hard they work.  "I put in 80 hour workweeks regularly" or "I'm the hardest worker in the whole company, just ask me."  Besides taking these types of claims with a huge grain of salt (the true hard workers don't have to tell you how hard or long they work), I am left to wonder who could work at full pace and capacity that many hours for an extended period of time.  My belief, only Superman. Sometimes extra-long hours are required, yes, and longer than forty-hour weeks are common and expected whether that promotes optimum efficiency or not, but can anyone maintain a workweek with time for only a few hours sleep per night for an indefinite period of time?  When you are tired, the law of diminishing returns applies. An unasked question in my head is "what did you accomplish in all that supposed extra time?"  Another question, "how high was the quality of work performed?"  There would also have to be a pacing strategy to consistently work superhuman hours.  I have witnessed folks who could have had more normal work hours if only they had been organized, efficient, had prioritized tasks, not started the project at the eleventh hour, and worked with stronger intensity.  Being bad at time-management is nothing to brag about, in my opinion.  

The other side of this is the question of what kind of employer demands all of its employees' time?  And in demanding everything, are they really winning?  Burnout, fatigue, and the law of diminishing returns all come into play.  Abusive workplaces don't breed efficiency and the best work product over time.  Employees of such places jettison the employer at the earliest opportunity.  Creativity and innovation don't happen when your employees are dog-tired.  We need a better metric of success than how many hours were spent warming the chair at work.    

I don't want to be the patient of the surgeon who has been at work for three days straight with no rest, do you?  Let's reward the folks who produce high quality work on a consistent basis, not those who were simply physically there the longest unless they truly have the work product to show for it.  What did you accomplish today and was it done with appropriate speed for the task, of highest quality, done efficiently and cost-effectively for your customer?  What was the result of the time, however much or little that might have been spent on the task, and did it meet or, better yet, exceed the customer's expectations?  Did you do whatever was required to get the job done well and give a good day's work for the pay?  Those are the important questions to me.  The rest is a dubious bragging contest.  http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

The road to success is paved with failure. It's hard to achieve much if you aren't willing to take calculated risks along the way and be willing to fail occasionally to get to success.  You can't learn to play the guitar well if you aren't willing to play any wrong notes in the process.  Calculated risk does not include playing the lottery and reasonably expecting to win.  Be smart about risk but be willing to put yourself out there and know you will fail probably multiple times and maybe even fail spectacularly if you want to achieve something special and out of the ordinary.  If you are in your comfort zone all or most of the time, you are unlikely to achieve or experience anything extraordinary.  Ask yourself whether anything memorable happens while you are sitting in your real or metaphoric easy chair?

Face your very real fear of failure.  No one can expect to be on a constantly upward climb. The economic downturn alone has proven this.  Life's path has many ups and downs. Get up, dust yourself off, make the appropriate adjustments and keep going. The alternative, doing the same old thing in the same old way no matter what, is not a very rewarding choice, is it?  Be willing to fail your way to success.
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html 

Some people think an employment reference is required by law to be only name, rank, and serial number.  Others think anything true can be released in an employment reference.  Both are wrong, at least in Kansas.  Although many companies wisely choose to only release neutral information like dates of employment and last position held, others make different, riskier choices.  Truth is generally a defense in litigation over employment references, but even certain true information cannot be disclosed. Still, it costs a great deal of money to defend a case, even when you win.  Thus, the neutral reference option chosen by many companies.

Not everything true can be released.  Just one example is the release of medical information about an employee or ex-employee.  Releasing or not releasing information in a certain way or tone could be illegal  as well.  "That's all I'm going to say about him" or "no comment" is very different than "per company policy, we only release dates of employment and last position held for all employees here."  Many states (including Kansas) have reference statutes that provide either full or qualified immunity to employers if they follow the rules set forth therein. 

Other things to consider include who should be the reference-giver ("all calls routed to human resources" versus "any manager may respond"--you can probably identify which of the two has more liability potential,  requires more frequent training and results in less control by the employer).  To make sure your company is in compliance with the law, contact a qualified legal professional, not Wikipedia or your Uncle Pete (unless he is an employment lawyer licensed in your state). http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html