2014 / 09

How Long Should I Keep Electronic Recruiting Correspondence?

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 29, 2014

0 Managing People. Team Leadership Electronic Recruiting Correspondence, Hiring Practices, HR Management, Inc., Strategic Human Resources

By Strategic Human Resources, Inc. Question: Much of our recruiting is now done online and via email. Do I need to keep the emails generated from our last round of hiring? Does it matter if the candidate followed through with a response or not? Answer: You need to keep any records from the search for one year–those that you were considering AND those that you were not (even those that applied but may not have followed through with a response to your email). Keeping them in an electronic file is great–date it and pitch it next year. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires employers to keep employment records for one year. After that time, employers can either discard the record or archive it, provided they maintain the confidentiality of information contained in each record. Suppose you have a resume, cover letter, list of references, and brief notes from a telephone screening, yet you decided to select other candidates for in-person interviews. The records generated, including electronically, during the course of the preliminary screening are, in fact, hiring records. They must be kept for one year, pursuant to EEOC regulations. Another important reason to keep hiring records on file even if the applicant wasn't hired is so applicants don't have possible recourse if they are rejected during the hiring process. Applicants who claim they weren't hired based on factors not related to the job (i.e, race, sex, national origin, age or religion) have up to one year to file a formal discrimination charge with the EEOC. Should the EEOC decide to investigate the applicant's complaint, the agency can ask employers to produce records used during the hiring process. The company's hiring practices don't look favorable if the employer can't comply with the request because it has discarded the hiring materials. Strategic Human Resources, Inc., is a national full-service HR management firm based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Our president and founder, Robin Throckmorton, can be reached at Robin@strategichrinc.com.

Tips for Finding and Developing HiPos in Your Company

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 29, 2014

0 Hiring - Best Practices Darcy Jacobsen, high potential employees, HiPos, HR position, IED and Stanford Business School, succession plan, succession planning

By Darcy Jacobsen According to a study by Quantum Workplace, 1 percent of executives believe that their succession plans are excellent. Okay. You might be in the lucky minority. You might be that rare company that has a fantastic multi-level succession plan based on substantive, nuanced data, which not only makes your high-potential employees feel invested, but also yields great leadership for your organization. But it's statistically unlikely. You're probably more like the rest of the world. You would love to have that kind of succession plan. It comes up in meetings all the time, but when it comes to actually creating it, there's a sort of paralysis that sets in. Shoulders are shrugged. Helpless looks exchanged. There's no clear path. No sense where to start. And it all gets pushed off to the next meeting. Or quarter. Or decade. "The majority (of executives) do not think that their organizations are doing enough to prepare for eventual changes in leadership at the CEO and C-suite levels," says Stanford professor David Larcker in the 2014 Report on Senior Executive Succession Planning and Talent Development. "Nor are they confident that they have the right practices in place to be sure of identifying the best leaders for tomorrow. These findings are surprising, really, given the importance that strong leadership has on the long-term performance of organizations. Research shows that companies with sound succession plans tend to do better." I got an email from a reader the other day who provided a great view from the trenches on this topic. He is a candidate for a director of HR position at an IT company, and after an interview where the CEO and COO grilled him about his ideas for succession planning, he wrote: "Succession planning from my experience (or lack of) is like the HR equivalent of searching for the Holy Grail! I have yet to work for a public or private company that has been able to even dip their toes into this sacred pool." According to a 2010 survey by Korn/Ferry, 98 percent of companies believe a CEO succession plan to be important–but only 35 percent actually have one in place. Likewise, DDI's 2011 Global Leadership Forecast found that only 1 in 3 organizations have high-quality, effective development plans for leadership in general, and in a 2011 AMA Enterprise survey only half of survey respondents said their organizations were somewhat effective in their ability to retain high-potential employees. Would we all like to have a great succession plan? Yes. Do we all know where to start? Apparently not. According to the 2014 Report on Senior Executive Succession Planning and Talent Development published by IED and Stanford Business School, here are the Six Key Elements of Successful Succession Planning:

  1. Strategic Planning – Determine what capabilities, roles, and talent are needed to execute the business strategy today and in the future.
  2. Talent Assessment – Gauge the executive team's bench strength. Do we have who we need (now and in future) and if not, how do we get there?
  3. Recruiting – Develop a talent pipeline for key roles/jobs.
  4. Performance Assessment – Let people know they are valued contributors and provide them opportunities for development, exposure to executives, networking across divisions, etc. (Get them on the corporate radar screen.)
  5. Development – Create development plans for individuals. (e.g., leadership workshops, classes, on-the-job learning, assignments, special projects, 360s, external classes, etc.)
  6. Retention and Engagement – Rewards and recognition, work environment, opportunities for development, job autonomy and scope of responsibilities, etc.
This is fantastic advice, but it may not have gotten you any closer to implementation. If you're like most companies, there are three underlying challenges that are preventing you from putting that plan into practice. They sound like this:
  • How do we identify and assess succession candidates and HiPos in the first place?
  • What are the components of a development plan that keeps them engaged and onboard?
  • How do we track their work performance and growth over time?
Here are five brass-tacks tips we can offer for overcoming those challenges:
  • Stop talking in generalities. What is the definition of "high potential" in your organization? Not the Wikipedia definition. YOUR definition. Your culture is unique, and so is your leadership style. If you have not defined what it means to be high-potential–specifically at your company–how can you expect people to execute on that? This paper from Kenan Flagler Business School at UNC includes some nice case studies, and did find some commonalities among the competencies organizations look for in their high-potential candidates. 70 percent of respondents looked for future performance potential and 69 percent looked for strategic thinking ability. Other criteria included a drive for results, current and sustained performance, culture fit, and commitment to the organization. Ultimately, though, the definition has to come organically from your own company culture.
  • Use recognition data to find your HiPos. This is the single best piece of original advice I have in this article. Want to find your best future leaders? Look at who your employees are already recognizing as informal leaders. Performance management cannot always discern high performance from high potential. According to the Corporate Leadership Council, only 29 percent of high performers are also high-potential employees. If you want to see who the informal leaders in your organization are, look at the recognition work circles. Those people who are in the center of them? Those are the people who have the biggest influence on your company. Chances are, all of your future leaders are there.
  • Be more incremental. Many companies focus all of their planning on their chief executives, and go no further. Succession planning cannot be for the CEO alone and focusing all your attention only on getting people to the top spot can be paralyzing. Creating a healthy talent pipeline means developing at all levels. As former Campbell's Soup leader Doug Conant recently shared in an interview: "To succeed in an enduring way, you must develop well-rounded leaders who can work in a frenetic environment. If you're not looking forward, watch out. Even the mighty will fall. While the CEO manages succession, the board needs to champion the development of talent. Leaders change, markets change, and it's hard to find and maintain an enduring proposition without an enduring stream of talent." Instead of worrying about getting the elite on a direct track to the C-suite, concentrate more of your succession efforts on simply getting a pipeline full of people with leadership potential.
  • Use positive feedback as a development tool. There's a raging debate out there about whether or not you should tell your HiPos that they are being developed for leadership. No matter which side you fall on, it is critical to make these employees feel that you are developing and valuing them. Positive feedback is critical to this process, and it will keep HiPo employees feeling aligned, engaged, and relevant. I think this CCL paper has some other terrific insights into what specifically companies are doing for development of HiPos, and how HiPos feel about it. Note the word "cloud" on page 13 of the CCL paper. HiPos equate their identification with recognition, so it is important to continue that reciprocal process throughout their development.
  • It's a marathon, not a sprint. Identifying candidates and throwing development their way isn't enough. You need to assess, track, and continually evaluate their progress. Mentoring is a fantastic method for both development and assessment, because it puts someone on the ground with the candidate who is focused on their progress and well-positioned to judge their progress. Performance evaluations are also important, of course; but again, recognition can be an invaluable tool to give you insight into how those identified future leaders are performing, and how valid that assessment continues to be. There's some good advice in this Aon Hewitt paper on both initial identification and ongoing assessment of succession candidates.
I hope as you seek to transform your organization's succession plan into one that's a cut above the competition. Let us know how you do, and please share any insights you might have with us. Darcy Jacobsen is a content marketing manager at Globoforce, the world's leading provider of SaaS (software-as-a-service)–based employee recognition solutions. Through its social, mobile, and global technology, Globoforce helps HR and business leaders elevate employee engagement, increase employee retention, manage company culture, and discover the power of real-time performance management. Contact her or follow her writing at www.globoforce.com/gfblog.

Countdown to ACA Compliance

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 23, 2014

0 Affordable Healthcare – ACA Smart, Legal Issues - Staffing Employment Agency Bellevue, Employment Agency Everett, Employment Agency Kent, Employment Agency Seattle, Employment Agency Tacoma, Employment Agency Washington State, hiring, Hiring Bellevue, Hiring Everett, Hiring Seattle, Hiring Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Bellevue, Temporary Staffing Everett, Temporary Staffing Kent, Temporary Staffing Seattle, Temporary Staffing Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Washington

Part II. ACA Requirements and Penalties - 2015! Yes, the 2,300 pages it took to write the law, followed by the 10,000+ pages of regulatory interpretation can be daunting, but with the January 1st launch of our transitional year just around the corner, we are taking the time to boil down the complication into the “critical few”—things our clients MUST KNOW about what lies ahead. In Part I, we provided a complete glossary of ACA terms—just so you would have a playbook. In Part II, we are providing a simple outline of employer and employee requirements for 2015.

  • Employer (Shared Responsibility) Requirements: In 2015, employers with 100 or more full time employees (or full time equivalents) must offer a healthcare insurance plan that provides Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) to 70% of its full time employees and their dependent children or be subject to “failure to offer” penalties described below.
  • Individual (Shared Responsibility) Requirements: As in 2014, individuals must enroll in a healthcare plan that provides themselves and their dependents with MEC level coverage. If they do not obtain MEC insurance, either through their employer or Medicaid, they are required to purchase an ACA approved plan through a State or Federal Exchange—in Washington we have a “working” Exchange.
  • Employer Penalties: It is important for employers to distinguish between two important differences in mandated plans:
    • MEC/Minimum Essential Coverage plans are typically very low cost plans that meet both the individual and the employer mandates.
    • MVP/Minimum Value Plans are most costly plans that must meet ACA actuarial value standards in addition to “affordability” standards. Most MVP plans will meet MEC requirements, but not vice versa, making employers subject to two types of penalties.
1. Failure to Offer Penalties. Employers who fail to offer a MEC plan to 70% of their eligible employees (and their dependent children) will pay a monthly tax/penalty of $167 or $2,000/yr.—for each eligible fulltime employee. This tax/penalty is calculated on your entire eligible workforce and will include all those employees who have been offered and accepted coverage. Deductions: In 2015, you can deduct 80 employees from your count of eligible employees. In each year after 2015, you can deduct only 30. For example, in 2015 if you have 100 employees working for you in a month and do not offer coverage to at least 70 of those employees, your monthly penalty will be based on 20 employees (100 minus 80) calculated at $167 each for a total of $3,340 tax or penalty each month you fail to offer. 2. “Inadequate Plan” Penalties. If the plan an employer offers is either “unaffordable” or does not provide “minimum value” (MVP) the tax/penalty per month for employers increases to $250/month (up to $3K annually). This penalty is unique and much more complicated to administrate in that it is applied only to those employees who seek and are granted a government subsidy as a result of applying for insurance on a State Exchange. If an employee is offered both a MEC and MVP plan and EITHER refuses both, or ELECTS only the MEC option, they WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SUBSIDY. NOTE: Most employees are not aware of this special provision of the law and may enroll in a low cost MEC plan believing that by enrolling they will become compliant with the individual mandate while preserving the option of receiving subsidies at a later date. An employee who has been offered both MEC and MVP coverage and elects the lower cost MEC coverage, loses their eligibility for subsidy. 3. Individual Penalties/Taxes/Fees: For your employees, the penalty (technically referenced as a tax or fee) for failing to obtain the required insurance coverage is either a flat dollar amount per person or a percentage of household income. These penalties are already in effect for 2014, but go up significantly in 2015.
  • In 2014: the penalty is $95 per person, $47.50 per child (up to $285 per family) or 1% of household taxable income, whichever is greater.
  • In 2015: the penalty is $325 per person, $162.50 per child (up to $975 per family) or 2% of household taxable income, whichever is greater.
  • In 2016: the penalty is $695 per person, $347.50 per child (up to $2085 per family) or 2.5% of household taxable income, whichever is greater.
  • In 2017 and beyond: the penalty will be the same as 2016 with Cost of Living increases.
4. Your Employee’s Eligibility for Subsidies: Individuals with household incomes determined to be 100-400% of federal poverty levels may be eligible for government funded subsidies to buy their insurance. Employees become ineligible for these subsidies if:
  • They are already on Medicaid.
  • They have been offered and refused an employer’s offer of a healthcare plan that is both affordable and meets MVP requirements.
  • They purchase insurance through venues other than a “qualified” Exchange—in our case the Washington Exchange.
In 2014, the poverty level for an individual is $11,670, which means that for families of four, subsidies will likely be available if the family earns anywhere from $23,050 and $92,200 annually. The eligibility boundary for 2015 is not yet available, although current estimates are that in 2015 over 26 million people will be eligible for subsidies. 5. Discrimination. The regulations relating to the new discrimination provisions embedded in the ACA have not been written and the IRS has promised it will not enforce any of its discrimination provisions until regulations have been published. We know that sometime in the near future employer funded plans will become subject to tests ensuring that differential treatment not be awarded to highly compensated employees, but it is the nature of these tests that has not been determined. Employers need to be paying attention to these regulations likely to be published in 2015 as the challenge of avoiding discrimination will be a significant cost management issue for employers with diverse workforces and an historical pattern of providing unique benefit options to their highly paid employees. In the meantime, in 2015 employers will be able to offer different plans to different employee groups and can contribute differently to employees based on “their group.” If the plans offered meet MEC, MVP and “affordability” tests, typical tiered/pay up plans are allowable in 2015 without risk of penalty. 6. Record Keeping. 2015 adds several new layers of administrative and reporting requirements for ACA defined “large” employers (50 or more employees), regardless of whether or not you are subject to the employer mandates in the 2015 transitional year. Notices to Employees. Since October 2013, all “large” employers have been required to provide new hires with a statement of their eligibility for coverage that they can either obtain through you or the Exchange. The IRS has made this compliance requirement easy to administer by providing samples of required letters. They are available for download via the IRS website: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/regulations/coverageoptionsnotice.html Forms 1095 C. In accordance with section 6056 of the IRS code, employers offering a self-insured MEC plan AND employers considered “large” under ACA standards will be required to report annually on all employees who worked for them as a full time employee for at least one month during 2015 and each reporting year thereafter. These reports, using Form 1095-C need to be prepared monthly throughout 2015, but will not be submitted to the IRS until March of 2016 (if filed electronically). Form 1095-C must be submitted to employees by end of January 2016.
  • The data required, organized by month, includes:
  • The number of full time employees (each month).
  • The name, address, and SSN of each full-time employee (each month).
  • The months during which coverage was available.
  • A certification, month by month, of the employer size.
  • A certification, month by month, as to whether the employer offered the full time employee (and his or her dependents) the opportunity to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage.
  • The amount the employee would need to pay if they accepted the lowest cost monthly premium (for self-funded programs only).
  • The months, if any, during which the employee was covered.
Forms 1095 B. The ACA also added section 6055 to the IRS Code, requiring all insurers and self-insured employers providing minimum essential coverage (MEC plans) to submit annual reports (Form 1095-B) identifying the costs of their plan and who was covered. If you are an employer who offers a fully insured group health plan, your insurance issuer is required to submit the returns, but if you offer a self-insured plan, you are required to submit the returns (even though a third party may prepare the return). Employers are generally subject to penalties for failure to file Forms 1095 -B and C; although the IRS has said that in 2015 they will not impose penalties for incomplete or incorrect information if the employer made a good faith effort to comply. W-2 Reporting. The requirement to include the costs of certain healthcare benefits on the employees W-2 at the end of each year has been in effect since 2012, but has only been loosely enforced. From 2013 on, employers filing 250 or more W-2 forms annually are required to report the total value of certain employer-sponsored health benefits to all employees receiving this benefit. The amounts reported are strictly informational and have no impact on the employee’s taxable income. In Part III of our Countdown to ACA Compliance, we will be discussing the special provisions of the ACA that apply specifically to temporary and contract workers—our specialty. There are provisions in the law that you should know about to protect yourself from unforeseen fines and penalties. jeanneThis article was prepared by Jeanne Knutzen, CSC, the President and Founder of the PACE Staffing Network. PACE remains committed to full compliance with the ACA and offers a variety of staffing products and services designed to ensure that our clients have options for containing the costs associated with ACA compliance. For a confidential discussion of how these services might be applied to your workforce, particularly your temporary and contract employees, contact a member of our PSN partnership team at infodesk@pacestaffing.com or 425.6376.3312.    

Retain Employees. Manage Turnover. Which Is It?

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 9, 2014

0 Flexible Staffing Strategies-Best Practices, Managing People. Team Leadership Employment Agency Bellevue, Employment Agency Everett, Employment Agency Kent, Employment Agency Seattle, Employment Agency Tacoma, Employment Agency Washington State, hiring, Hiring Bellevue, Hiring Everett, Hiring Seattle, Hiring Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Bellevue, Temporary Staffing Everett, Temporary Staffing Kent, Temporary Staffing Seattle, Temporary Staffing Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Washington

Okay…while not a pure play contrarian, I’m finding myself reacting less than enthusiastically to all the talk on employee retention that has been hitting the airwaves lately—apparently the hot topic in the staffing world. For me, the mandate that companies do what is necessary to retain their high value talent is HR 101. So when I read all the hoopla on the value of retention, I want to make sure our readers also hear the other side of the story—that for some jobs, the goal can’t always be about reducing turnover/improving retention, but needs to be more about better managing the turnover they have—smartly, proactively! MANAGED TURNOVER is a different sort of staffing strategy that I believe has a legitimate place in any hiring manager’s arsenal of staffing options.    Most (but not all) of the MANAGED TURNOVER staffing models we put together for our clients are developed in response to scenarios involving what we call High Impact/Low Appeal (HI/LA) jobs! You know those jobs—ranging from that pesky front office job that was crafted from all the work no one wants to do, to the folks in your warehouse doing that boring, repetitive assembly type work that no one could pay you enough to do. No matter how great the manager’s motivational skills or generous the company’s pay programs, the nature of HI/LA work lends itself to workforce issues—increases in absenteeism, accident rates, and other workplace mischief that makes HR shutter. Sooner or later most HI/LA jobs suffer from high levels of voluntary or involuntary turnover, directly impacting team or company performance. When asked to find employees for HI/LA jobs, one of the first things we explore is the option of ending the uphill battle for retention, and replacing it with a staffing model involving a strategically rotating group of temporary workers. Here’s why:

  • New temporary workers can come to HI/LA jobs fresh, ready to perform at high levels when their motivation to meet a new challenge is at its highest.
  • Temporary workers are easily rotated out of HI/LA jobs when the work is no longer new; the employee is no longer fresh.
  • Turnover (for the client) goes away, replaced by assignment starts and ends,
  • …as does the costs and hassle of recruiting and vetting new employees. That work is shifted to a third party staffing agency.
MANAGED TURNOVER programs are built around statistically measured cycles of performance that exist for all jobs, all employees. While specific timelines and measurement units (ex. productivity, attendance, etc.) vary, each employee’s performance in an HI/LA job usually comes out in some version of a bell shaped curve. When the employee is new, they are motivated to learn and fit in with the team. Productivity increases until the newness wears off and the signs of boredom or discontent start to surface in the form of issues with attendance, carelessness, and other forms of worker misconduct. Chart for Blog The goal of a MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model is to optimize the number of workers in the earliest, most productive, stages of the performance cycle, while systematically cycling out employees just before they start into the downward cycle. When done proactively, the employee’s temporary assignment begins and ends at predetermined times, most correlated with optimized worker performance. One of the important benefits of a MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model is that it side steps all the negativity embedded in a core employee staffing model applied to HI/LA jobs. Employers no longer spend time outlining their defense of a decision to terminate a core employee. Employees no longer struggle with a job that is no longer challenging. Assignments begin and end in accordance with a custom designed staffing plan based on the performance cycle typical of that particular job or workforce. Minimal hassle, minimal complication. The heavy lifting of replacing departing employees is assigned to a third party staffing agency, reducing if not eliminating internal recruiting costs. Another side benefit of a MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model is that your temporary workforce becomes an always-available pool of candidates for hire. As all hiring managers know, when it’s time to hire the ramp up time, costs to find, screen and hire a new employee can be significant. And there is no guarantee that who your hire will work out. Having a large number of auditioning workers continuously available for hire allows employers to hire in a timely way, selecting only the very best to become a part of their core team, reducing the costs and disruption of hiring errors. Not to worry, a MANAGED TURNOVER model doesn’t mean your entire workforce becomes "temps." Depending on the work to be performed, there are identifiable ratios of core and non-core workers that optimize overall performance. Too many temps and stability suffers. Too many core workers and your operational costs will eat away at your bottom line during your less busy periods. Ratios of temp to core workers can range anywhere from 10-15% to a high of 85-90%, depending on your business cycles and the nature of the work. Here are two examples where one of our PSN partnership teams implemented “managed turnover” staffing models that improved worker outputs, dramatically reduced recruiting costs, and/or improved overall team performance and morale: Some of our earliest converts to a managed turnover staffing model were call center clients who were hiring large numbers of entry level employees for service roles. One particular call center was facing a serious issue with first year turnover which was both increasing their internal recruiting costs, while also impacting service levels. 1. In partnership with our client’s HR team, our call center recruiters augmented the client’s recruiting team, reducing our client's internal recruiting costs. We worked in partnership to implement a uniform staffing process where all employees, sourced either by the client or our own recruiting teams, were screened and onboarded in the same way. All new call center reps were employed by PACE during the first 90-days of their employment. This “audition period” allowed employees who were unable to meet the client’s expectations to be systematically removed from their assignment so that at the end of the audition period, the client offered employment only to those employees who were able to meet the full scope of their expectations. Those not measuring up were either given an extended “audition” period or their assignment was ended. Using this “managed turnover” staffing model in effect transferring most of the first 180-days of turnover to PACE, the client’s first year turnover rates were cut in half. Employees whose assignments were ended during the audition period became available to be placed on other PACE assignments, better suited to their personality or skill sets.  2. A second example is provided by one of our large healthcare clients who were experiencing turnover, attendance and workplace injury issues in their laundry area. After viewing the work, it was easy to see the classic HI/LA profile—physically demanding, repetitive, and ultimately boring work. While the client initially asked us to help them improve their hiring outcomes (i.e. reduce turnover), our recommendation was that they focus instead on better managing the turnover we suspected was there to stay. With the client’s guidance, we implemented a MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model.  As each core employee left we replaced them with a temporary employee, whose assignment varied in length depending on our client’s anticipated needs. The employer’s workforce was soon “mostly temps” who were hired for specific work performed for a specified time period—and were oriented and managed accordingly. The PSN partnership team set up a performance management system which, with our client’s help, was used to manage the employee’s performance. When an employee started to fall below defined standards, PACE, not the client, invested its recruiting resources to find a replacement candidate. For this client, the MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model delivered a level of orderliness and predictability to their staffing process they hadn’t experienced in the past. It eliminated the negative impact of unexpected turnover, as well as taking away the pressure on their internal recruiting teams to staff a high turnover workforce. For our temporary employees, it provided them with assurance that when their assignment ended, their performance would earn them the opportunity to be placed elsewhere.   Workplace injuries were reduced by cycling temps in and out of the performance cycle, avoiding the burnout that had been a contributing factor to both attendance and workplace accidents.             Obviously this MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model can’t be applied to all jobs and all work environments. And even if you determine that one of the HI/LA jobs you manage would lend itself to a MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model, there are some basics that need to be in place: The Right Staffing Partner. A staffing agency who only knows how to recruit people is not the partner you need to implement a MANAGED TURNOVER staffing model. Look for an agency who knows how to address productivity issues, has tools and systems in place to help you manage employees, and can bring you ideas about how to implement a managed turnover staffing plan. Look for a staffing partner as interested in solving your operating challenge as you are. The Right Financial Model. You will need to keep your CFO aware of what you are doing and why as you will be purposefully expanding your budget for temporary staffing while decreasing the monies you spend on high cost core staff. While the per hour costs of temps and core employees is almost identical (by the time you factor in all the regulatory and benefit costs of core employees), depending on how your company organizes its budgets and expense allocations, the costs of these two different types of employees can end up in different places on your financial reports and may trigger questions from “up the chain.” You will likely need at least one senior manager on your team who understands the shift you are making in how you are doing “staffing,” and why. The Right Mindset. Most of the MANAGED TURNOVER staffing models we implement with clients tend to migrate into very objective, data driven, staffing processes. Even though you are no longer managing core employees, the need for clear performance standards, transparent metrics, and fair administration does not go away! jeanneThis article was written by Jeanne Knutzen, the founder and CEO of the PACE Staffing Network. The PSN partnership teams are well versed in a variety of flexible staffing strategies, including MANAGED TURNOVER programs. For a complimentary consultation on what flexible workforce recruiting and staff strategies might work in your organization, contact us via our InfoDesk at infodesk@pacestaffing.com or by calling 425-637-3312.

47 is the NEW 40!

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 3, 2014

0 Staffing News Employment Agency Bellevue, Employment Agency Everett, Employment Agency Kent, Employment Agency Seattle, Employment Agency Tacoma, Employment Agency Washington State, Hiring Bellevue, Hiring Everett, Hiring Seattle, Hiring Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Bellevue, Temporary Staffing Everett, Temporary Staffing Kent, Temporary Staffing Seattle, Temporary Staffing Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Washington

The 2013.14 Gallup Work and Education Survey (just released) suggests that the average number of hours worked a week by US employees is almost one day more than the 40 hours typically considered full time. In fact, only 42% of the employees reported working only 40 hours—with 47 hours being the average of the 1,271 adults polled. While 39% reported they worked more than 50 hours a week, with 18% reporting their work week got stretched to 60 hours or more. While 40 hours is widely regarded as the standard for full time employment, salaried employees reported working an average of 49 hours a week, while hourly employees reported working an average of 44 hours per week. Our readers should note that the hours of work reported were based on employee’s self reports—not data pulled from payroll records. Our experience is that employees typically over estimate the number of hours they actually work each week. Issues with self reporting set aside, it is clear that the 47 hour/week average is clearly the perceptual norm—being the consistent average being reported by the Gallup survey for well over a decade. While most state and federal employment laws define full time employment as 40 hours/week, the ACA defines full time employment as 30 or more hours/week—that point where the employer’s mandate to provide healthcare benefits kicks in. Critics of the ACA are predicting that more employees formerly considered full time will be converted to part-time status to avoid benefit eligibility. The Gallup poll noted that in their study, 43% of the employees polled were employed full time, down from 50% reported prior to 2007 and the “Great Recession.”

How to “Do” Employee Engagement – Not Just Talk About It!

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 2, 2014

0 Recruiting - Best Practices Employee Appreciation, Employee Engagement, Employee Leadership, Employee Motivation, Fierce Inc., Halley Bock, Leadership

The following article was written by our good friend and professional colleague, Halley Bock, CEO of Fierce Inc. Fierce is a world class leadership training and development company headquartered in Pioneer Square, Seattle, Washington, but with clients working with Fierce leadership concepts all over the globe.  This particular piece appeared in a recent Fierce newsletter, but was originally posted on TrainingMagazine.com. We thought our readers and other friends of PSN would benefit from reading about simple, hands on ways to engage employees in meaningful ways. Marbles Thanks to Gallup’s annual State of the American Workplace survey, we know that employee engagement statistics continue to fall short of expectations and what we know is possible for our companies and ourselves. The short and sweet of it is that only 30 percent of the U.S. workforce is engaged, with the actively disengaged costing our economy somewhere in the range of $450 billion to $500 billion per year. That’s a lot of dough to leave on the table and certainly nothing to pride ourselves on. And while so many managers are aware of this issue—we know we need our employees engaged and we can discuss this topic at great length—we don’t necessarily know how to do employee engagement. It remains a statistic we strive for: intangible, elusive, and ever increasing in importance. When it comes to employee engagement, three key trends have surfaced as the most critical for increasing and maintaining high levels of engagement: Candor, Collaboration, and Development. Big topics, yes. But when broken down, we begin to see how we can get our hands on the levers and actually do engagement. Candor According to a study conducted by Harvard Business Review, companies rated by their employees as being in the top quartile in openness of communication delivered an average total shareholder return of 7.9 percent over a recent 10-year period, compared with 2.1 percent at companies in other quartiles. According to another study by Corporate Executive Board, the key indicator most strongly correlated with 10-year returns is employees’ comfort in speaking up, even when they have negative things to say. Clearly, candor is important and explains why companies with higher engagement create more profit. Here’s how to do candor: Tell the truth, always. Corporate America continues to squander employee trust, be it through the housing crisis and subsequent collapse of the economy, or the recently revealed GM safety issues and subsequent recall. Little by little, lie after lie and deceit after deceit gets revealed to scores of innocent employees who unknowingly participated in massive schemes rooted in corruption, greed, and mendacity. The devastation to our livelihoods and trust is immense. The only viable way for organizations to regain trust is simple: Tell the truth and keep telling the truth. No. Matter. What. Avoid making excuses for employees, believing they are unable to handle the truth because the truth is, they can handle it. What they can’t handle are the lies and the “massaged” truths. By speaking the truth in a skillful way, employees can rise to the challenge and actively engage themselves in the solution. Ask for the truth, frequently. Candor is a two-way street—an unending feedback loop—that should be traveled often. As much as we deliver candid feedback (both positive and critical), ask for the same in return. No matter what a person’s title, we all have blind spots and could use a refreshing, outside perspective on what we’re doing well and what we could improve. Collaboration In our own survey, The Six Key Trends That Increase Employee Productivity and Engagement, 98 percent of respondents believe exploring other points of view improves decisions. Gallup found that engagement increases at all levels of tenure as employees continue to participate in focused initiatives to improve their engagement. Imagine that: engaging employees in their own engagement through collaborative means. Here are some ideas on how to do collaboration in a way that directly feeds into increasing engagement: Work the lattice, drop the ladder. The ongoing resilience and health of any organism, animate or inanimate, depends largely on its ability to withstand change. Structures that are able to weather these storms are typically well footed, with reinforcements that tie in both vertically and horizontally. Why we believe higher safety, stability, and success exist through creating siloed organizations remains a great mystery to me. Decisions made within a vacuum are dangerous as they are less informed and, therefore, run a higher risk of failure. When making decisions that affect a strategy, customers, and/or employees, take the time to seek multiple, diverse perspectives. Reach across the lattice of the entire organization, pull in insights that will create a better outcome, and strengthen engagement across the board. Create an engagement committee. As per Gallup’s own statistic, employees appreciate having a hand in creating and sustaining their own engagement. This explains why many firms with coveted top engagement levels have teams or committees focused solely on this initiative, or on being a “best place to work.” A company’s engagement culture is not something that can be managed from the top down. Culture is an outcome that results from the quality of relationships employees have with one another, with their company, and with their leaders. Because it is such a vast ocean and because engagement is created through different means for different people, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to create a cross-boundary committee to help guide this ship. By inviting employees in at the ground level we can increase engagement levels immediately. The upside only gets better from there. Development Individual development and the ability to make an impact on an organization is an increasingly hot topic for high potentials and Millennials. To pull another statistic from Gallup’s survey, Gen X and Baby Boomers are the least engaged, but Millennials are the most likely of all generations to leave their companies in the next 12 months if the job market improves. Why? Because they often feel road-blocked from reaching their full potential due to outdated development and promotion programs. These are typically programs that are blindly followed and have very little to do with the individual on the other end. Rather than do development on behalf of others, let’s involve employees so they can do development for themselves. Ask the questions, lose the assumptions. Another danger of living within the confines of a ladder, silo, or closed system is that we lose sight of all the possibilities and begin to view the world in a fairly one-dimensional way. We begin to assume that the only way to progress in a company is to go “up.” Or that it involves managing more people. Or that it means adding an “S” to the “VP” within a title. Or that it certainly must involve a merit increase. In short, we begin to make assumptions that may have a lot to do with our own values and experience but may have little or nothing to do with the individual sitting in front of us. Before envisioning a development path for employees and starting them down that journey, ask them how it is they see themselves growing within the organization. Put the onus on them to create a vision of their future and then develop a path that speaks to them. In essence, engage them in their own development right from the beginning. Challenge status quo. Gone are the days of applying one rule across multiple cases with the expectation that it will “hold water” for an extended time. The world, and thereby business, has become too dynamic and so have the generations of people we employ. To engage today’s workforce and meet their development needs, focus on individuals and their capabilities when assessing new opportunities. For example, revisit how quickly a high-performing employee potentially could make the jump from a junior to senior position. Does it really have to be after a two-year term or after having managed x number of projects or people? If employing a remote workforce is currently off-limits yet a top player requires this shift, lean into the possibility and seriously consider why this would not/could not work. Chances are, those fears are not based on reality and are tied to something else that needs to be challenged. Bottom line, when a top performer challenges your beliefs, rather than defend the policy or your stance, get curious with yourself and the employee. Genuine exploration into a juicy topic alongside any employee automatically will create engagement, and will do so no matter what the outcome. In summary, engagement requires engagement. There’s a lot of doing required—transforming this huge, amorphous topic into something tangible that we can act on. It won’t happen as a result of offering extravagant perks but comes through reinforcing each and every connection within an organization. Creating an intentional culture by focusing on candor, collaboration, and individualized development will put a company well on the path to achieving the statistics we all aspire to.