In Good Company

Welcome

2009-04-04T10:07:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Infusion Management's weblog, In Good Company.

This weblog is an online forum for discussion about organizational development, organizational behaviour, human resources, people management, leadership, team dynamics, and personal development. THESE ARE OPINION ARTICLES. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE AND WE ACCEPT NO LIABILITY FROM THEIR USE AS SUCH.

Dialogue is a reciprocal exchange of thought, and so your comments are welcome and valued. This is a professionally-oriented forum, and comments should be professional and respectful in tone or they will be removed for the reading pleasure of all.

This is not a sales or marketing tool; it is to facilitate the exchange and creation of ideas and to share knowledge. That said, articles and writing posted here remain the property of the authour. Please do not engage in claiming or implying authorship of, or incorporating material from, someone else's written works. If you wish to use anything on this site, please send through an email to the site and request to use the material. Provided the authour is acknowledged, you usually will be welcome to.

If you have questions or would like more information, please feel free to email sarah@infusionmanagement.ca.

Reference Checking in the Privacy Era

2008-04-07T18:15:00.000-07:00

"The good, when praised, feel something of disgust, if to excess commended."
~Euripides, Greek playwright

Is the Reference Dead?

Contributed by Sarah Jasper
Principal, Infusion Management

Before you start to jump up and down with joy, please note that my answer would be no. Euripides wrote most of his works in 400 BC, when the reference process was, assumedly, still in its infancy. Reference checking will likely always remain an important part of confirming a hiring decision. But recruiters today are facing new challenges in an era of increasing protection for employee personal information. At least in British Columbia, where PIPA and PIPEDA have made major headway into business processes since their introduction in 2004, there are new implications for the candidate reference process.

While there have yet to be a significant number of privacy cases from which we can draw precedence, there may be serious implications for the recruiter who does not take care when negotiating privacy considerations in the recruitment process.

So who can I talk to?

Well, references supplied for the express purpose of getting employment with your company are, of course, fair game. References that a candidate volunteers on their resume – although a bit of an outdated practice – may also be contacted on the principle of implicit consent, although explicit consent is always safest.

The real problem, of course, is that rational candidates will not list a reference unless they feel certain the information they give will be overwhelmingly positive. In other words, the only news is good news. In many cases, the referee may have even been coached by the candidate on your culture, the requirements of the role, and other information gleaned from the interview process. The likelihood is low of getting the information you need to fulfill due diligence, such as areas of poor performance, conflicts with other peers or managers, or even why the candidate may have left their role.

So who else can you talk to? According to the strict interpretation of PIPA, you are not required to gain the consent of the candidate for referees not implicitly or explicitly provided. But there are three major stumbling blocks to doing investigative research on your future employee:

Advance notice. You are not required to gain the candidate’s consent to speak to previous employers that the candidate has not listed, but you are required to give the candidate notice in advance that you intend to do so, and specify who you are going to contact.
Reasonable requirement. In addition to the advance notice requirement, you must be able to demonstrate that the personal information you want to collect and use in this way is “reasonably required” to establish the employment relationship. An employer may want to know information that would be difficult to demonstrate as a reasonable requirement. Use your Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) principle here.
Privacy limitations on the referee. If the candidate has not authorized the referee, they may be in breach of PIPA themselves if they disclose personal information about the candidate without consent. So even if you have the right to ask, they might not have the right to tell.

Employers have gotten around this by developing a notification in the recruitment process, online application process, or on the application form itself that gives them consent to use referees other than those listed on the resume or application form. But given the attention and focus on privacy protection today, and given the competitive labour market environment, these ‘blanket’ reference causes may do more harm than good when it comes to starting off on the right foot with a valued candidate.

A better idea is to make clear at the outset who you want to talk to and ask explicitly for permission. Stating, “we ask to speak to the direct managers of all candidates for their last two roles" makes more sense than requesting permission to contact anyone and everyone in the candidate’s past. You can also make an offer conditional on a satisfactory reference from the current employer, which means the candidate has an offer in hand to consider before they have to advise their manager, and you get access to their most recent (and perhaps most valuable) work history.

What can I talk about?

Generally, a recruiter is able to discuss with a referee any personal information about the candidate that is reasonably relevant to the hiring decision. Good rules of thumb:

Keep it related to the role. Discussions of qualifications, experience, skills sets, and professional knowledge are easily demonstrated to be relevant. Asking more general questions about work ethic, work style, or strengths is acceptable provided it is relevant and you are using it to assess suitability, not to draw general conclusions. Relevancy is role specific; what may be relevant for a management position may not be relevant for a candidate who will never be managing people in the role. Relevant questions for someone who will be handling corporate funds or dealing with children may also be more strenuous. Just ensure due diligence and not morbid curiosity is your motivation...questions regarding off-hour activities, what their family life is like, how much they were making in salary, or their golf handicap are likely not relevant.
Watch human rights issues. One time-honoured question in a reference check is generally something about punctuality and attendance. However, be careful how you pose the question...and what the answer might inadvertently entail. Time off or adjusted schedules given due to religion, medical or physical disability, or family status may have been a required accommodation by human rights legislation. Discriminating against a candidate for attendance or punctuality issues, if they are related to one of these protected grounds, can land you in hot water. (Even if they’re not the reason you elect not to hire the candidate, the onus may be on you to prove it!)
Document...everything. If you decide not to hire a candidate, you might not be obliged to tell them why, but reference check and interview notes are part of a candidate’s personal information, which means they can request access. So keep them respectful and professional in tone and be mindful of your retention requirements. Also, in the event a rejected candidate submits a complaint on the basis of human rights discrimination, you may need those notes to demonstrate an objective basis for your decision other than a prohibited ground.
Don't forget to check the basics. Many a recruiter has gotten through a reference check with flying colours, only to determine after a little probing that the referee never actually managed the candidate at all. “Did you personally conduct the candidate's performance review?” is a good question to determine whether they were actually managing the employee or just a dotted line manager. At the least, confirm that the title the candidate gave on the resume matches the official job title they had, check that the scope of responsibilities generally matches, and check the start and end dates by position. A lot of strrrrrrrrrrrrrretching occurs on resumes.

What if I just can’t get a reference?

While it used to be a red flag if a candidate couldn’t provide a reference (and may still be) it is becoming a legitimate challenge for even strong candidates as more and more organizations simply refuse to provide references for fear of violating privacy legislation. If you or your candidate is up against an organization that won't provide a reference:

Demonstrate consent. Some organizations will be more amenable to provide a reference if you can provide them with the candidate’s written consent. This may alleviate their concern that they’re providing a reference without authorization.
Get ‘pre-approved.’ Consider providing them with a copy of your questions in advance. The manager can then forward the questions to their HR representative to get an “all clear” prior to having the discussion so they manager won't be caught off-guard.
Ask for a role description. They may not comply for reasons of confidentiality, but if they will, at least you can confirm what the candidate did, if you can’t confirm how effectively they did it.
Confirm the details. Even the most strict HR department will usually be willing to confirm title and dates of employment.
Use performance reviews. A former employee is entitled to access copies of their past performance reviews. If the former employer simply won’t provide you with anything, the employee can utilize their rights under privacy legislation to get copies of their files and all performance reviews (but keep in mind the other company has up to 30 days to provide them.)

Remember that references should only confirm hiring decisions, not make them. A good recruiter will ‘suss out’ hidden performance issues or conflicts with careful probing questions through the interview process.

If a reference is noticeably missing from a list, the recruiter can always ask the candidate if they can provide a reference from that role. If they can't, they’ll probably explain why, rather than refuse to provide one and raise concerns. But making it clear at the outset what you're going to expect in terms of references will save you time and heartache.

A final note: candidates may have a “once I’m in, I’m set” attitude...but falsifying a resume, references, qualifications or background information can be grounds for termination for cause, so do ask questions and keep good records.

Yes, references are getting tricky, but they ain’t dead yet. If you really can’t bear to do them, a trusted external recruitment agency may offer reference services for a nominal fee, and in some cases, will even adopt some of the liability if the hiring goes wrong. So good luck...and remember what Euripides says. The good candidates will prove themselves...and as for the rest, well, sometimes that’s just what probation is for.

Motivating Without Promotions

2008-04-04T16:18:00.000-07:00

“The vulgar mind always mistakes the exceptional for the important.”
~W. R. Inge, English Authour

In Praise of The Middle: Motivating Without Promotions

Contributed by Sarah Jasper
Principal, Infusion Management

Do you remember back to Odiorne’s model of strategic management of human resources where he categorized employees as stars, workhorses, problem children, and deadwood?

If you don't (and I admit, I had to blow dust off my organization development textbook) it was a simple matrix that divided your employee base into to one of four segments through two axes, potential and performance. Your high-potential, high-performing employees were your stars. Your high-potential, low-performing employees were your problem children. Your low-potential, high-performing employees were your workhorses, and your low-potential, low-performing employees were your deadwood, a term that wouldn’t probably fly nowadays. (Mr. Odiorne had developed management by objectives before most of us reading this article were born, so we excuse the lack of political correctness.)

His essential theory has heavily influenced modern talent management practices in the workplace, in principle if not in language. Jack Welsh may call himself a maverick, but he hardly reinvented the tire - sorry, the wheel – with the concept of categorizing managers, eliminating the bottom 10%, and lavishly rewarding the top 20%. In fact, many organizations spend considerable time and resources to identify and motivate the stars. Performance management systems reward them. Career pathing models move them around. Surveys are developed to find out what engages and motivates them.

For all the attention paid to them, most HR professionals would agree that stars are relatively simple to motivate. Generally speaking, they want more responsibility, promotions, managerial authority, or more challenging assignments; and, being aware of their own potential, will usually ask for them. They patiently write out career development plans, apply for tuition assistance, work overtime, and read personal development books voraciously. They tend, in other words, to take care of themselves.

While we'd be loath to admit it, most career pathing, succession planning and performance management systems are designed in the pursuit of an organization that is all stars (although I doubt anyone would ever want to work there.) But the very essence of managerial span of control tells us that only a small percentage can actually move forward. Stable, strong operations often depend on a large percentage of employees staying right where they are.

If an employee has been honing their abilities in a particular role for a long time and their performance remains strong, they may just have a good work ethic or value job stability. But very often, they are intrinsically engaged and motivated by the work itself, rather than being focused on title or decision-making scope. And intrinsic motivation is what we’re all looking for as HR professionals. But sadly, pay-for-performance systems have a difficult time with intrinsic motivation.

In technically-focused organizations, where ‘hard skills,’ work quality, or output largely dictate performance, workhorses are often promoted into managerial roles, where they suddenly find themselves spending 80% of their time managing people and only 20% doing what they used to love so much. Not all top performers are good people managers, as those of us with bad bosses know all too well, nor do they necessarily enjoy it.

Perhaps worse, in organizations where ‘soft skills,’ leadership attributes, or professional development are rewarded as key performance critieria, the workhorses’ lack of interest in upward movement or managerial functions is perceived as a negative, and a high-performing employee may be completely demotivated by a lackluster performance review.

So, if we’re good managers and we understand that a promotion isn’t necessarily going to make our workhorses happy, exactly how do we demonstrate to them their worth?

Ask Them. Don’t ask them in a survey; surveys are generally set up for stars. Ask them what motivates them, what they would like to do differently, if anything.
Give Good Reviews and Recognition. Simple, but managers are sometimes leery of ‘upsetting the apple cart’ by giving great reviews to high performers, for fear that they will want a promotion the manager doesn’t want to give. So we adopt an “if it ain’t broke...” hands-off attitude which can breed resentment as the stars soak up all the limelight.
Give Ownership. If someone is good at something, it’s generally because they like it. People who like things tend to take care of them. If the person has the capacity, can they have more ownership of a function? A ‘business owner’ of a function can be an unofficial role, one that is responsible for process improvements in their area and acts as ambassador, who gets to have input with the senior team. But be sure that you’re actually adding autonomy, or latitude in decision-making, rather than just work you call “responsibility.” People understand the difference.
Make Them a Mentor. An employee with a lot of expertise in a particular area might really enjoy teaching new or less experienced employees and having that recognition. But don’t make assumptions; not everyone with high knowledge in a subject area is an appropriate or effective mentor, and if they don’t enjoy teaching others, it’s just more work for them.
Compensation Pathing. Just like career pathing, only you don’t force someone to pick a new job title every two to three years. We’ve gotten very used to only compensating people when they advance to a higher position, and possibly to our peril. It means that people who don’t necessary want to be managers accept those jobs for the higher salary. If you want to justify the salary increase, look at making them the business owner or a subject matter mentor, if appropriate. Why shouldn’t they be compensated for that?
Recognize Job Evolution. If an employee started out as an Accounting Clerk five years ago and is now running your entire Accounts Payable department, get them involved in updating their job description and title. This can add a lot of value by getting to understand just how much work they’re actually doing, which could be more than is apparent, and giving them that recognition for their resume. If they’ve been receiving fair increases over the years, this can be done without expectation of an increase in compensation. You’re simply recognizing what they’re already doing. But handle this one carefully, as you don’t necessarily have the right to unilaterally change someone’s job description, and promotions without pay increases usually demotivate rather than motivate. So tread carefully and keep communication open.
Skills Training. Learning new skills does not necessitate learning a new job. Just because an employee is going to stay in the same job doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get the same opportunities to learn as someone who attached a three-page career development plan to their last review. And the biggest complaint that managers have of their workhorses is that their technical or computer skills fall behind. So be proactive about offering training or development opportunities.
Watch Your Assumptions. Try and clarify what potential means to you before you label someone as low potential. And the phrase 'workhorse' can lead us astray. Being older, working for the same company for a long time, or working in a high detail or high volume job doesn't make someone a workhorse.

Most importantly, remember that people change over time. A workhorse in one environment or role can be a star in another, and the opposite can be true. Be careful that you are not making assumptions that will come back to bite you (or go work for your competitor.)

Talent management is a tool that is easier to misuse than use. Use it as just one of many mental models, and be able to engage with it and disengage from it as appropriate. If you're spending more time making Excel spreadsheets and assigning people to colour-coded categories rather than talking with your employees and managers, you are probably way off course.

And please, don’t just reward your stars. The workhorses, just like the real stars in the sky, aren’t always easy to see...but we always know they’re there.

Having Difficult Conversations

2008-04-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

"The rate at which a person can mature is directly proportional to the embarrassment he can tolerate."
~Douglas Engelbart, co-inventor of the computer mouse

You Want Me To Tell Them What?

Contributed by Sarah Jasper
Principal, Infusion Management

Inappropriate attire. Hygiene problems. Offensive personal habits. Flirtatious overtures. Vulgar language.

If a situation is getting serious enough that you're getting complaints, it can be highly embarrassing for the person involved...and for the person delivering the message.

If you manage people, or if you're in HR, there will inevitably come a time when you will find yourself across from an employee pleading, "someone has to say something" and that someone, unfortunately, is you.

These conversations are uncomfortable, but they probably need to happen. Always consider the source, and checking with the offending employee's direct manager is always a good idea, but if there truly is an issue present then you're likely going to have to tackle it directly.

Usually, handling it sensitively and directly is in the offender's best interest. They may be unaware - blame all those cowardly managers before you who avoided the conversation. (For karma's sake, don't be part of the problem and pass the poor employee on to others.) And if the situation is not addressed, coworkers may resort to embarrassing and public tactics, like leaving deodorant on a desk, or hurtful notes around the office. As tempting as it is, general communications like 'anonymous memos' or group training usually don't work because the employee almost certainly will not realize that it's really referring to them, setting them up for true embarrassment later when you have to talk to them again...directly.

So how to tackle this most squirm-inducing of all people management situations?

Involve HR Right Away. And do it confidentially. If you don't have an HR department, and it's a sensitive area, consulting with an employment lawyer or qualified consultant could be well worth your money. Why? Well, lack of deodorant is one thing, but if you ignore sexual harassment, violent outbursts, or mishandle a human rights issue, you can be looking at a lawsuit from the employee or the other employees around them. The employee may have a medical condition, such as alcoholism or depression. The behavior may be linked to a religious or cultural belief that has to be accommodated because it is protected under law.
Deal With It. Set up a meeting immediately. Have the conversation in private.
Be Direct. After being called to your office, their anxiety is likely to be high. Small talk will only make them more anxious, so get right to the issue. "I have some information that is difficult to share."
Don't Inflate. “It's been brought to my attention" or "I've heard from a number of people" only makes it seem that everyone is talking and makes the situation more embarrassing. Simply say, "I wanted to bring something to your attention in private so that you weren't uncomfortable." Why me, you ask? Because you don't want the employee to spend the next three months trying to figure out who mentioned something or thinking it's really just about a personality conflict. Take the heat yourself.
Be Clear. Don't beat around the bush and use pillowing language, as you may just confuse them and run the risk of having to have the conversation again. “The feedback is that the odor of your person or your clothes is very strong, and it's distracting. We all have different sensitivities to scent, so you may not be aware." "Your manner is perceived as flirtatious to the point that it is inappropriate."
Don't Play the Culture Card. Blame our over-zealous diversity management of the nineties for this one. Remember: you may mean well but it's very dangerous to make assumptions about culture or that it’s the cause of the behaviour. Saying "I know it's just part of your culture" or "maybe where you come from people like less personal space" can be very offensive and can land you in hot water if you're wrong, or if your actions are perceived as discriminatory. Just don't go there. If the employee wants to make you aware of a cultural custom, religious observance, or medical condition, however, listen, and take it seriously.
Tell Them The Upside. Some people genuinely don't care as much as others about hygiene, modesty, or manners, so give them a concrete benefit that will flow from the change in behaviour. "I know how important your relationship with your team is to you, and I think this is an opportunity to improve it."
Be Open and Listen. "Is this something you feel you could address?" "Is there anything we can do to to help?" In the case of inappropriate attire, maybe the employee can't afford a new wardrobe and some sensitivity is in order. In the case of personal hygiene, it could be due to a medical condition that your EAP or benefits package could address. So ask.
Show Appreciation. That conversation was very embarrassing for the person so show your appreciation. "I really appreciate your understanding, thank you for listening."

In most cases, an employee will be embarrassed but will remedy the behaviour. But what happens when you lived through that difficult conversation...and the behaviour continues?

Escalate. If they deny it or refuse to address it, they may not be clear that it is a serious issue. "I realize this is difficult, but it's affecting other people negatively. May I arrange to have you speak to someone in HR confidentially so this can be resolved?"

If you are HR, check your policies and use 'em if you got 'em. At the least, every workplace, no matter how big or small, should have a "respectful workplace," diversity, or harassment policy that makes it very clear what is not acceptable behaviour. For other issues, make sure you communicated clearly. If you don't have a written dress code, for example, speaking to someone about their plunging necklines is pretty reasonable, but formally disclipling them is not. A good rule of thumb is that paper needs paper...in other words, if you're going to 'write someone up,' it's generally good to have a written policy or communication to justify it.

So if you are having issues, it might be time to bring in a clear, written policy. Be sure to give proper notice for its introduction, and remember that policies are shields, not swords, so communicate it to everyone and not just the problem employee. Once it's in place, you have demonstrated clear communication and can likely, if necessary, proceed with formal disciplinary action. But policies should never, I repeat, never take the place of a conversation.

Because we're all grown-ups, right? Humane honesty will solve 90% of all embarrassing issues, and it's well worth it. Why? The message it sends is "we care about you and we want you to be successful."

And that's a much better message than deodorant on a desk.