I'm Not Absent But I'm Not Totally Present Either

The majority of companies large and small have some type of applied policy regarding absences in the workplace.  Undoubtedly, the policy outlines some sort of threshold on what constitutes abuse and may even outline the measures that will be taken to address and curb abuse.  Having such a policy is part of Human Resources 101.  Any experienced manager can name which employees are reliable and which ones can't seem to get to the office on time on a regular basis.  It is easy to list the effects of employee absenteeism: you've got your usual negative affect on productivity, the cost of paying out sick leave while also having to incur the cost of another employee covering the absent employee's workload, and there are the associated administrative costs.  It can be fairly safe to say that much of what affects employee absenteeism is employee health.  The more health issues an employee has, the more likely (not in all cases but in the majority) that the employee will have a higher frequency of call-outs.  After watching an episode of HBO's documentary series The Weight of the Nation, I was reminded of another, greater, impact on a company's bottom-line......presenteeism.

               Presenteeism is defined by Dictionary.com as:  "the practice of coming to work despite illness, injury, anxiety, etc., often resulting in reduced productivity"   This definition can also be expanded to include the loss of productivity that occurs when employees come to work with general limitations as a result of their health status.  For example, WebMD cites a study that indicates presenteeism is a cost of obesity.  According to the 2010 study, "the health-related cost of obesity among U.S. workers is $73.1 billion a year - enough to pay the salaries of 1.8 million new workers".  Staggering figures, right? Remember, this is over and above costs to a company connected to absenteeism. 

What I think the great take-away here is that the importance of company health plans cannot be stressed enough.  Specifically those that have intertwined health tools, incentives, and strong support.  

Snacking the Way to Higher Health Costs?

You can now add into the cost of a bag of chips an additional premium to your health insurance.  More companies are looking for ways to offset the rising costs of healthcare and, after cutting benefits to "alternative" treatments such as chiropractic and massage, they are looking for more ways to save.  Enter the age of the healthcare penalty premium.  Here's how it works: your company requires to to submit to a health evaluation (which may consist of anything from weight and blood pressure screening to a complete work-up of your daily habits).  Then, your company evaluates the results and determines whether you meet predetermined markers for health.  If you do not you can be charged a higher rate for healthcare premiums or will be asked to participate in a program to address your healthcare issues to hold the increased rate in abeyance.  

Or, your company may want to mirror the policy CVS has enacted.  "A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine" according to Steve Osunsami of ABC News.  That fine is $50 per month and employees that agree to submit their health stats through a work-up by their doctor will not see an increase.  Think of it as an opt out program.  The idea is similar to that of companies who automatically enroll all eligible employees in a retirement savings plan and force employees to take an action to opt out.  

This, of course, creates quite a push back from not only individual employees who see this as an unfair practice and an invasion of their privacy but also from groups like the Patient Privacy Rights.  Founder DR. Deborah Peel states: "The approach their taking is based on the assumption that somehow these employees need....to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy". 

The practice, though, of passing along a "surcharge" for an unhealthy lifestyle is not relatively new. But what about offering a carrot to those employees who participate in company wellness programs?  Surely that must be okay, right?  In fact, industry experts like benefits consultant Towers Watson, predict a significant rise in the number of companies that implement the practice.  In the New York Times article The Smoker's Surcharge, Reed Abelson points to a concern.  "Some benefits specialists and health experts say programs billed as incentives for wellness, by offering discounted health insurance, can become punitive for people who suffer from health problems that are not completely under their control".   

So....what to do?  Let me throw one final thing out there to think about.  Choice.  How much of an employee's health is related to the choices they make?  Choices in the foods they eat, the level of activity they have, etc..  Where do you draw the line of personal and governmental responsibility (for allowing the phenomenal rise in artificial ingredients and food processing)?

Okay....off my soap box now...

Go Ahead - Try It!

I like to learn. No, maybe that's not entirely true.  I like to have knowledge but I'm not always amenable to the process of leaning.  I tend to want the knowledge to somehow download into my brain like Neo learning kung fu (yes, that was a complete nerdy Matrix reference I am proud to say). What I also know, though, is that the best way for me to learn is to process the knowledge in smaller pieces. This way I reduce my chances for frustration and increase the chances that I will retain what I have learned as it is easier to apply a bit of knowledge at a time rather than large volumes of data.  It's just how most of our brains work. 

Reducing the learning process to a shorter period of time is also a great way to introduce yourself to something new.  Matt Cutts, an engineer at Google, would agree.  In this short TED talk he mentions the various 30-day "experiments" he completed where he committed to trying new things for 30 days.  It is surprising how little time you need to practice something before it becomes ingrained as habit.

Check out the talk below and go out there and try it!

Your Nose is Growing...Lies in the Workplace

I once had a co-worker, let's call this person Pat, who certain acrimonious people in the office referred to as "The Parrot".  Pat received the moniker by tending to nod her head and agree with people concerning topics she did not have a high comfort level with.  In other words, Pat would agree or disagree on these topics purely based on the general consensus.  You might say that Pat's mimicking essentially meant Pat lied to disguise a lack of knowledge on the given topic.  You would likely be right.  How terrible - what an unethical way to conduct yourself, right?  Possibly, however, Pat is not alone in her missteps at navigating office culture and politics.  According to Christopher Bonanos' article The Lies We Tell at Work, Pat is part of the majority who lie in the workplace.  Some of those lies have darker motives and, as usually is the case, result in the loss of gainful employment for the deceitful.  

The better news is that most of the workplace tall tales fall more into the "light' lies category.  These tend to be in the interest of getting work done and avoiding conflict - so, don't feel too bad.  If you decide not to give an honest opinion when a co-worker asks if you like her new haircut it's because telling her the new do makes her look like a standard poodle is not important enough to disrupt office harmony.  

What you need to look out for, states psychology professor and The Liar in Your Life author Robert Feldman, "the greater the deception, the more workplace culture is likely a factor".  In other words, employees easily pick up on what is and is not acceptable in any organization.  It's good practice to do a bit of a culture check once in a while - survey your employees and "walk and talk" the floor.  Listen to what they are saying and observe what they are doing.  

In the end certain workplace lies are okay - protecting company secrets (e.g. "the secret formula") because it provides your company a market advantage, fostering interpersonal relationships ("that lunch you've brought from home smells great"), or in cases where you promise less then deliver more.

Hiring for Culture or Qualifications?

Okay - admit it.  You've conducted an interview with a potential candidate and allowed, at least in small part, your own cultural biases to help make the hiring decision.  It's okay - many have done it and, to some degree, it is even preferred that you use company cultural markers to factor into the hiring process.  In fact, many companies are preferring to hire for cultural fit rather than add a new staff member based purely on qualifications.  Sure, it sounds like a bunch of human resource managers asking "Google-type" interview questions like "What is your favorite food?" and hiring candidates who like the same foods as them.  Not so. Think about what the typical interview is like (I mean the old standby, classic interview).  Usually you ask questions designed to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate are and ask questions designed to determine whether the candidate can back up their claims.  Is that the best way to find the most creative candidates, though?  Is it the best way to find candidates who will enjoy working with your current employees; e.g. someone who will be a great contributor?

According to Logan Hill's Bloomberg Businessweek article Only BFFs Need Apply, the answer is yes.  Companies are increasingly hiring for cultural fit which does not necessarily mean the most qualified candidate is being chosen.  As a marketing executive states "I once hired a woman who really didn't have the right background or experience...and because we got along so well, I was able to train her easily, and she ended up doing great things for us".  A recent Inc.com article by Ilya Pozin lists passion and commitment as one of the top qualities his company looks for and lists relevant experience as fourth.  Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, in an interview with Inc.com, states that they have passed on hiring people who are smart and have the necessary qualifications but who do not seem to fit the company culture. Zappos even bases 50% of their reviews on whether the employee is inspiring the company culture. 

What is driving the move to cultural fit as being as important (or more important) than requisite qualifications?   Blame millennials according to Dan Schawbel, author of Me: 2.0.  Millennials have priorities that differ from previous generations.  "They'd rather have meaningful work over more pay....they want a culture that's less hierarchical, more flexible, and more understanding of differences" states Schawbel. 

Finding Your Super Stance!

It's time for another TED talk.  This time I thought I would throw in some self-empowerment that will assist you professionally but also personally.  Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist and professor with Harvard Business School, shares her research regarding power dynamics.  What I found interesting is a study that Cuddy mentions in the beginning of the talk.  The study had people observe doctor-patient interactions without sound; meaning, they could only infer how the interaction went and could not hear what was being said.  Based on simple observation, they were able to predict which doctors would have an issue with lawsuits.  Basically, how well you can interact non-verbally, as well as verbally, has a high impact on employee relations (when relating the study results to a business application). 

Now....go out there and display your best Superman or Wonder Woman stance!

Hit "Delete" to "Reply All"

How much time do you spend reading emails that are of no interest to you because you were part of a "reply all"?  Well, if your numbers are similar to the average you are spending a good 5 percent or more of your workday opening and reading such emails.  Beyond being annoyed that you just received the fifteenth "reply all" response to an email on whether staff prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream for the office party, opening these emails puts a dent in productivity.  Considering that approximately 15 percent of your day is spent on email that 5 percent can really add up.  "Spread those stats over a 10,000-employee company and you rapidly get to a pretty big number in terms of dollar cost- in the tens of millions of dollars per year" according to Bloomberg Businessweek article Re: Re: Re: Confidential.  

Some companies are taking drastic measures to combat the time waste (and interrupted concentration) that all those unwanted emails results in.  Wells Fargo's sales division head, Gene Sellers, decided that he was tired of it all and pronounced the "reply all" button dead to his staff.  The button is forboden and may only be used in special circumstances that involve the staff as a whole. Netmanners.com suggests users utilize Bcc   to remove the option of "reply all" from the receivers of your message.  

From my experience I can tell you that the majority of the "repy all" messages I have been on the receiving end of were due to simple carelessness.  These were instances were the sender was not paying attention, distracted, or just wanted to get the message out of their inbox.  Taking a moment to review, not only your response, but who you are responding to can save much aggravation and possibly avoid some nasty repercussions (for those not too nice griping emails). 

Managing Our Reputations

I recently read a very small sidebar in a weekly magazine that was focused on the "hockey mom" image of Sarah Palin.  The sidebar quoted the money spent in 2008 on clothing to ready Palin for the Republican National Convention.  The sidebar went on to state "and she still managed to look like she worked in human resources!".  Hmmm - I wasn't certain what I was to take away from that comment.  What I did know was that many employees and, in some rare cases, entire organizations still view human resources as stodgy, annoying, and out of touch with the average employee.  They also feel that human resource managers will "side" with the management team despite evidence of wrongdoing that tells another story and "protect the sham of performance reviews" in the words of one contributor to About.com.  Here, a Wharton School of Business article entitled Is Your HR Department Friend or Foe restates this rather succinctly:

"According to its critics, HR departments can be needlessly bureaucratic, obstructionist, stuck in the "comfort zone" of filling out forms and explaining company benefits, and too closely aligned with the interests of management yet lacking the business knowledge to be effective strategic partners. Dealing with these types of HR departments is like going to the dentist..."

Many employees have had only negative interactions with human resources and so - no wonder - they have formed such an opinion.  Unfortunately, sometimes human resource managers allow their department's reputation to be managed for them rather than taking an active role in forming the outward in view employees have on human resource functions and roles.  We all are aware of the push to make, and keep, human resources a partner at the strategic table.  This means pushing up change rather than letting change dictate what you will do next as in a reactive scenario.  This means using metrics to discern trends and establishing a sound case for acting on those trends when those at the top level are not reacting.  Taking an active role in the human resource department's reputation is a sure way to effectively manage it - don't let human resources just "happen" - drive it....and stop wearing "soccer mom" (or "soccer dad") business clothes...

Where's My Lunch?

Thought I would lighten things up a bit and write about a subject that, while a little light, is a sore spot for some employees. Imagine that it's early afternoon and you've put a solid few hours of work - you are ready for an energy infusion (e.g. lunch). You open the fridge and find that someone else has beaten you to your lunch and decided they needed it more. You now feel like this is not going to be a good afternoon. Other than the fact that you have to eat out of a vending machine now, you realize that there is someone in your office that has very little respect for boundaries. Maybe though, this person left you a little bit of food (you know, because they felt bad)...

What should you do? You could take the route of striking back and some passive-aggressive tactics. Some interesting ideas (culled from actual employee strike backs): 

hide your food in a jar labeled "medical specimen"

hide food in the back of the refrigerator

camouflage your lunch as in this clip at HuffingtonPost Canada

Or, you could make an attempt to instill a little guilt and peer awareness into the perpetrator by leaving a note stating "hope you enjoyed that leftover chicken and rice, maybe try bringing in some for yourself".  If lunch stealing becomes a constant issue, your office manager could try posting signs that send a clear warning to stay away from food they didn't bring.

There are several articles on the topic and even a web site, Passive AggressiveNotes.com *(note: site contains some content not entirely suitable for children) devoted to the topic of addressing (or redressing) those individuals who feel compelled and entitled to liberating your lunch. 

School is Over but the Bullies are Still Around

Within the field of education we stress a no bullying policy and make efforts to educate every student, parent,  teacher (instructional employee) and non-instructional employee regarding bullying. It is apparent why we would educate students, parents, and teachers but why educate employees who are not in contact with students? The reason is workplace bullying. When you were in school I'll bet you could name the bully (or the person that had that reputation) and you hopefully steered clear of that person and never had to deal with them. For many people, it was not too difficult to avoid the bully - that is, unless he was in your class.  You were "captive" then. An easy mark. The same goes for adults and bullies in the workplace. You must be at work and there the bully is - waiting for his/her captive target. 

Workplace bullies go by many titles: co-worker, boss, vendor. They have many pseudonyms: shark, know-it-all, screamer, snake, gatekeeper, critic, attention seeker, two-face, etc.. (of course, there are quite a few more colorful names I have left off - you know them...). Bullies intend to circumvent the typical path to making something happen (whether it be gaining acceptance for their idea all the way to promotion) and use manipulation as their means to accomplishing their goals. To confirm as to whether that difficult person you deal with at work is actually a bully - take this test adapted from Psychology Today:

1. Does your boss blame you for fabricated "errors"?
2. Are you given unreasonable job demands?
3. Does your boss threaten you with being fired?
4. Does your boss insult you and/or criticize your abilities? Does this happen in front of others?
5. Are you excluded by the bully given the silent treatment?
6. Does your boss yell, scream, or curse at you?
7. Does your boss inconsistently enforce rules?
8. Does your boss deny or discount your accomplishments and/or take credit for your success?

So...what to do? First, be professional, be professional, be professional. I can't stress it enough. Many times when an employee confronts a bully in the workplace it does not have a happy ending - for the employee. Make sure to take some time to think through the specifics of what is occurring and even take notes. Practice responses to the bully so when you are in a particular situation the next time, you are ready to be assertive (not aggressive). Know when to escalate your concerns and when to walk away.

For additional information on how to handle a workplace bully, check out these links:

 http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/867-workplace-bullying.html

 http://money.howstuffworks.com/deal-workplace-bully.htm

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-michelle-callahan/work-bullies_b_833977.html

More $$ = Less Innovation

Why have business practices seemingly stagnated over since, say, the invention of management? Notice I said invention of management.  I refer to management (or the act of managing) as an invention because I agree with Dan Pink, a career analyst and former speechwriter, who makes the point in a TED - managing is a creation of man. Business, as a whole, seems to be fixated on the traditional model of employees and manager and how compensation is structured. Most organizations, as well, like to think they are driving productivity and even innovation by offering incentives (bonuses, stipends, trips, special parking spots, tickets to a game, a private bathroom stall with the toilet paper roll guaranteed to be loaded where you don't have to spin the roll to find the starting point, you know - the usual).

Guess what - those incentives are not working. Incentives are extrinsic motivators - motivators that are unrelated to the task the person is performing or to the problem that needs to be solved. Want to know what works? Creating a business climate where employees feel their work is meaningful and where employees can make a connection between what they are working on and a larger purpose - intrinsic motivators. Yes, this is sounding a lot like your college psychology teacher's lecture on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs but this is science supported by a large number of studies and real-life examples. Take a look at Pink's TED talk below and do a little research yourself - it's pretty interesting stuff that directly relates to how we manage our human resources:

How Not to Conduct Team-Building

I'm green and gold. I learned that I am green and gold through a team building exercise that was intended to bring insight to "an individual's pathway to self-confidence and esteem".  The pathway is part of the "True Colors" system of identifying character. The exercise was meant to be both fun and practical and it was, at least, interesting. The majority of the staff participated in the exercise fully, curious as to what their color/s would be. There were, however, some of the staff who sat in the room, arms crossed and head shaking in sarcastic disregard, who were less than fascinated by the whole attempt. While I wouldn't label the exercise a disaster, it was not altogether successful in building team togetherness and structure. Based on the MSN Careers article, The worst team-building experience you've ever had, others have had much more disastrous team-building experiences.

This comment,  regarding a ropes course that rubbed everyone the wrong way (yes, pun intended), from Rebecca Staton-Reinstetin, president of Advantage Leadership Inc sums up the main reason why a team should be well-developed prior to such an exercise: "It was an extreme example of how team-building events are mistaken for the long, hard work of actually building a team with shared goals and responsibilities". Put another way, any team-building exercise must start with a team - and a group of people who happen to work together does not make a team. Where to begin? Start by ensuring team members understand the "big picture" and the reason why their collective work is important to the organization and to each other. Susan M. Heathfield, human resource contributing writer for About.com puts it this way "You need to differentiate this overall sense of teamwork from the task of developing an effective intact team that is formed to accomplish a specific goal. People confuse the two team-building objectives. This is why so many team-building seminars, meetings, retreats and activities are deemed failures by their participants".

One of the best team-building experiences I have had was with a group I undoubtedly consider a team. We had been through forming, storming and norming and were comfortable and efficiently in our performing stage - the goal of any team. The goal of the exercise was to pass a ball between all the participants' hands within a few seconds time. We had sincere fun trying to come up with creative ways we could accomplish this goal. We first tried simply passing the ball to each other - not quick enough. We then tried lining up with our arms outstretched and having someone from the team run past us all while running the ball across the top of our hands - still not quick enough. We then, in a wonderfully symbolic show of a group of people working together, stood huddled in a circle while placing our hands clasped and in a circle and stacked on top of each other. All it took was one team member to drop the ball from the top and - tada - mission accomplished... 

Advice for the Fresh and the Seasoned

Recently I revisited a web site that I found some time ago while clicking through. The site is WetFeet and is designed to offer advice to recent college graduates on how to secure a job, keep said job, and develop professionally within or beyond said job. Although you may not feel you can identify with the intended audience, I think you will find some great tips on the site. All of us could use a refresher on things like "How to Write a Farewell Letter to Colleagues" (if you should be movin' on up) or "Rise and Shine: How to be Effective at Work". Take a look through the site when you have a little me time.  

Pinch a Penny Now, Lose a Dollar Later

What was your last shopping experience like when you ventured into a discount retailer (and, yes you have been in one admit it)? If your experience was like many other individuals' you were greeted by a retail store with merchandise strewn about, items in the wrong locations, advertised items missing from store shelves, not many employees around to ask questions of, and (if you found an employee) were met with a gaze from a tired, distracted, and overextended (or worse - a disinterested) employee. Conversely, what was your last experience when shopping at a "full price" retailer? For the most part, polls have shown that shoppers are willing to pay a small premium for better service and a better selection. People like to feel their shopping list is as important to the retailer as it is to them (after all, you earned your money, they should earn the right to take it as well). Don't worry there is a human resource connection coming.....

Let's go back to the discount store with the unhappy employees. What we know, as human resource professionals, is that unhappy employees = lower productivity, increased use of sick time, and lower ratings on customer service. So why are discount retailers (and many other areas of industry) lowering wages and shedding experienced employees? Yeah, yeah - we know - it's to be able to make those shrinking budgets. What if, though, we were actually accomplishing the reverse with our actions? Instead of steering our organization through an economic downturn we were further jeopardizing its health by driving customers away?

Professor Zeynep Ton, of MIT's Sloan School of Management, has ten years of research to back up why it might not be such a good idea to put the squeeze on your employees. In the Future of Retail: Companies That Profit By Investing in Employees at Time.com, Ton's research finds "companies that buck the status quo and invest heavily in their workforce actually are able to not only compete with their competitors on service but on price too". This upends the notion that to compete in the market as a low-cost leader, a company must have a low-cost workforce. In fact, Ton states that retail chains that experience high levels of success "invest heavily in store employees, but also have the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer service than their competitors".  

What, exactly, makes successful companies successful anyway? It's in their "business card".  Remember the old standby in business - it holds true today: your employees are the face, the "business card" of your company. The experience customers have with your company is heavily influenced by their interactions with your employees. Ton's research found "all sorts of efficiencies that become unlocked once you have a highly trained, highly motivated workforce". 

So take a cue from those that are successful now, and are set to continue their success and growth once the economy turns in their favor: invest in your employees. Yes, pay them a decent wage, provide a content rich and inclusive training program, offer great benefits, and promote a culture of innovation - then, maintain as you enjoy success...   

"Looking for a Unicorn"

Staying with the theme of "unicorns", the title of this post is taken from a Wall Street Journal article by David Wessel entitled Software Raises Bar for Hiring. In the article the president of Mindbank Counseling Group, Neal Grunstra, relates the stringent and highly specific requirements that many companies have for job vacancies as akin to "looking for a unicorn". Peter Cappelli, a human resources and management professor at Wharton School, cites an email he received from "a company that drew 25,000 applicants for a standard engineering position only to have the HR department say not one was qualified". 

Okay, so it makes sense that the current plethora of candidates for the dearth of job vacancies means that hiring managers can afford to be picky; after all the current state of the economy is a result of not enough jobs to go around.  Is that what is really happening, though? Or is this issue more about a lack of candidates with the right skills? "For every story about an employer who can't find qualified applicants, there's a counterbalancing tale about an employer with ridiculous hiring requirements", Capelli states. 

What about the issue of selection software? Software used in the process of recruitment and hiring was initially intended as an aid rather than a substitution. Now, many applicants submit their resumes in the hopes that they have included enough key words to get their resume through. Most applicants never get the opportunity to speak to someone.  Does this mean that an applicant who cleverly included a sufficient number of key words in their resume is better qualified for a position? Inherently no. 

This problem has spurred new developments in selection software. In Seeking Software Fix for Job-Search Game, Lauren Webb writes that the ideal software would "read resumes intelligently, flagging a handful of truly promising candidates to recruiters and alerting job seekers to openings that are laser-targeted to their skills and background". So, if companies are really intent on finding that unicorn they need to consider more than whether the candidate is great at manipulating their software selection criteria and focus on widening the scope. "Cultural and behavioral fit is a stronger indicator of success and business performance" states Elaine Orler of Talent Function Group. Capelli puts it this way: "[employers could] back off the strict requirement that applicants need to have previously done precisely the tasks needed for the vacant job" and "see if they could do the same with some training...".

Grooming Your Unicorn

I am going to begin this post by restating something I have said in the past: happy employees = more productive employees = increased sales, etc.. Shawn Achor, Harvard-trained psychologist and happiness researcher, understands this.  Archor says that we should be looking to design programs around the outliers, the star performers (sometimes so rare they are akin to mythical beings) instead of utilizing "one size fits all" programs implemented with the average employee in mind. Think about that. Most programs are developed using the mean rather than those "odd" employees who offer unique and innovative solutions, who continuously take initiative, and who may not fit the prototypical employee in your organization. As you will see in Archor's TED presentation below, that employee is more apt to turn stresses into challenges that beg for solutions they are happy to work toward.

So go out there and benchmark your stars rather than the average and "groom your unicorns".

Making Good Health a Competition

I recently received a $50 Target gift card in the mail. I received this gift card because I filled out a health questionnaire for my organization's health care plan. Getting $50 to spend at "Tarjay" was easier than having a birthday (because I wasn't a year older). The gift card was an incentive, one of many various organizations use in an attempt to raise the health-consciousness of their employees. 

This wasn't the first attempt by my organization to form a healthier workforce. In the past we had the "Take the Stairs" challenge where employees were encouraged to use the stairs rather than the elevator. When the challenge first began there was a communication push tied to a contest on how many flights total tallied up. Since that initial push, the most that has happened is doodling on the stairwell sign-in sheets. Then there was the challenge for who could walk the most steps in a span of time. Each participant was given a pedometer and teams were formed, mainly based on the floor your office was located on. None of these seemed to make an effective, lasting impact. Was there some value in these efforts - yes. They were low cost and did lead to re-focusing attention on employees' health.

Why did my organization take the time and effort to partner and promote these challenges? Health care costs. It's a fairly straight line from the aggregated health of your employees to the costs of health care premiums. Healthy people tend to use their health care benefits less often, tend to use less sick days, and are more productive. Apparently a healthier workforce also results in less presenteeism (don't worry, I had to look it up too). Presenteeism, according to the CDC is "the measurable extent to which health symptoms, conditions, and diseases adversely affect the work productivity of individuals who choose to remain at work".

According to statistics noted in "Pitting Employees Against Each Other...for Health" and appearing the Wall Street Journal, 60% of employers polled by consultants and the National Business Group on Health indicate their future health initiatives will include online games and other competitions between employee groups or locations.  After reading this, I began to question just how effective are these methods for bolstering the health of employees? To answer, I considered the challenge for walking the most steps. After participants received their pedometers it wasn't long until word spread that you could "tip the scales in your favor" by jiggling the pedometer (no walking needed). I'm afraid the message on health was lost on some employees. 

How do you ensure participants in health games are not cheating? You could require they use "tamper-proof" devices like digital pedometers or heart-rate monitors like those used with Humana's incentive program HumanaVitality. This may cause other issues, though, like backlash from employees who feel their privacy invaded. "The more you make it formal, the more burdensome it might feel", states health and welfare benefits leader Carolyn Plummer.  

I guess we will stick with our small, low cost efforts for now....

A Beta You

Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, has written a book titled The Start-Up of You. In this interview, Hoffman speaks to Time.com about how putting the effort into developing yourself can payoff in your career. What I especially liked was the statement to consider yourself as the beta version.  You are out there, working and learning but at the same time you should be in a state of constant development and improvement: a "permanent beta" state. 

Lessons in HR Courtesy of the IRS: People Are Not Widgets

Its April and its tax time - you know, the time of the year when procrastinators say "oh ____ (insert favorite expletive)". I know, the IRS is not your most beloved of U.S. institutions right about now but I thought I would take the opportunity to share something positive about the IRS with you (and yes, there is a connection to human resources). 

Nina Olsen is director of the little known Taxpayer Advocate Service and charged with helping taxpayers in disputes with the IRS - yes, you read that right - they actually work on your behalf and they are funded by the U.S. government - go figure!   Here's the HR connection: according to Businessweek article The People vs The IRS, Ms. Olsen is attempting a change of culture within the IRS. As Olsen states (referring to taxpayers who contact the IRS), "Don't think of these people as widgets". Lesson one. Lest anyone forget the basic foundations of human resources, Olsen's statement reminds us that we are dealing with people. People that have unique life experiences, unique work experiences, and unique strengths. I'm going to give you another quote from Olsen and we are going to play a game we have played before on The HRR: word replacing. Replace the word "taxpayers" with "employees" and replace "IRS" with your organization's name: "For the majority of taxpayers, the IRS has become faceless, nameless, with no accountability and no liability".  

If saying that sentence above made you feel a bit uneasy - good.  Lesson two: human resources is a partner in the success of the organization. Say it out loud.  Human resources is not to be considered "a necessary evil". People are our business and people can make the difference between an organization's successful rise and growth or the freefall of all that shareholders hold dear. Last quote for you from Olsen (just to bring it all home): "No business could stay in business behaving the way the IRS does towards its people".  Now go out there and make sure this last statement does not apply to your organization.

Professional, Personal, or Puerile

Have you chanced upon an employee viewing family pictures from Aunt Sadie or found them chuckling at the latest Internet video sensation while at their desk? My educated guess is that you have and likely have on more than one occasion. Do you think these employees would be shocked to know just how much time they actually spend clicking on every link sent their way? I think so and, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article there are applications that will serve to assist them. Employees, Measure Yourselves author H. James Wilson offers up a few such apps designed to do anything from measure how much time users spend on various websites to those that requests the user enter what tasks were accomplished each day.

Benefits to self-tracking and monitoring include understanding individual habits and productivity and devising the most productive task schedule. For example, some employees may find that they switch to social media, etc... when they feel a lull in their creativity and may find a boost of creativity after an off-task break. Don't believe this? Take a look at this article based on a University of Copenhagen study (the title says it all): Why Wasting Time on the Internet at Work Makes You a More Focused Employee. Others, may find that the pull of social media sites too enticing and find out they are much less productive on days where their YouTube viewing escalates. How will employees feel about being encouraged to utilize web sites that they may view as the company looking over their shoulder? Wilson offers this advice:

   "Many workers might be reluctant to track what they do if they think the company might get access to the information, or use it against them. Companies should emphasize that this type of software usually comes with lots of privacy controls. Workers can often store their data in the cloud, for instance, or locally on their machines. In some cases, they can pause tracking and delete pieces of personal data they choose. Likewise, they can also create a list of sites that they want to track by name and label all the other sites they visit as generic."