Inside Human Resources Blog

Recruiting Young Workers

In my newsletter this week I included a column written by Erica Metzger, our summer intern.  Erica is a third year student at the University of Pittsburgh with special interests in business, leadership and ethics. In just her first week working with SPS, she wrote this timely white paper on innovative strategies to recruit young workers.  I've included Strategy #1 below and created an easy sign-up for those of you who may want to receive the remaining five strategies.

Young adults these days are not just worried about getting a degree-related job post graduation; they are increasingly concerned with field-related summer and semester internships.  Interestingly enough, many of these young adults are students currently enrolled at universities and colleges around the nation and are eager to apply their newly-acquired skill set to the “real world”.

For businesses, taking on summer interns can result in a fairly low-wage, educated, part-time labor force.  And for young adults, taking a summer internship will yield substantial business knowledge, the application of school work, and importantly: resume development.  It’s a win-win situation.  So what types of ways are successful businesses attracting these potential employees?

1. Businesses are going directly to the source. 
A good way to get in contact with students is by directly going to the universities and colleges.  Many schools have several job fairs, which offer the opportunity for students to get associated with businesses in their field.  With little to no work (other than a poster display, etc) businesses can have several resumes of potential candidates.  It’s as easy as that.  Getting involved with these job fairs isn’t too difficult either.  One quick google of “job fair + (university name)” usually yields the numbers/emails required to sign-up.  Otherwise, calling admissions directly and inquiring about job fairs works too. Also, advertise in collegiate newspapers, on collegiate radio stations, and in “beat” publications (i.e. not just mainstream papers.)

There are other ways to get involved with the schools as well. Some schools offer programs that set up interviews on campus.  Students are able to sign up for these interviews online and the rest of the details (room, dates, and timing schedules) are handled by the program.  All they need are the businesses.  In addition, most schools have organizations on campus that are completely dedicated to professional development.  Students love hearing first-hand testimonials about the professions they study.   But be warned: these young adults will see through any façade you might present about your job being “great” and “flexible”, trust me when I say that they will be much more receptive toward  honesty.

Some professors are very interested in guest lecturers and speakers within the field.

A) It offers something different to maintain interest and
B) It provides real life experience to the ‘stuff’ that’s being taught in class. 

This can be a little more difficult, but if you have familiarity with the university or college, admissions can more than likely provide you with a name to discuss this.  You could always emphasize to the professor that you are more than willing to take resumes at the end of class.  Not only will this get the students to show up, but they will stay the entire time as well.

To gain immediate access to more strategies for Recruiting Young Workers, go to:
http://www.super-solutions.com/RecruitingYoungWorkersSign-UpForm.asp

To schedule media interviews with Ira S Wolfe or Erica Metzger, call 800.803.4303.

Do Helicopter Parents Hover in the Workplace Too?

Helicopter parents may hover over their children, but what's their management style in the workplace when it comes to other people's kids and their peers? Phyllis Weiss Haserot on her Blog "Practice Development Counsel" posted a set of questions concerning how Helicopter Parents operate as managers in the workplace some of which are as follows:

• Do the helicopter parents (those that hover too much and interfere) exhibit similar behavior with their juniors as they do with their children? Do they bring their parenting style to the workplace to over-protect and push their people ahead?
• Or do they take an opposite approach and expect great results without giving the guidance and support they want for their children?
• Are Baby Boomer managers (only some of whom are "helicopter parents") hard on younger generation workers because they are demanding the results they would like to see from their children, but without the coddling they give their kids?
• Is it because many Boomers are so competitive and status conscious that they want everyone (children, junior people on their work teams, etc.) to make them look good?

If we assume that Helicopter Parents operate as Helicopter Managers too, what impact will that have on the workplace culture and risks of litigation?

Read more at PA Employment Law Blog

25 Top Workplace Bully Tactics

Workplace bullies use many methods to intimidate their targets. Based
on studies of toxic workplaces, the Workplace Bullying Institute has
identified 25 of the Top Workplace Bully Tactics employed by workplace
bullies.

1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71 percent).
2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating and was clearly
showing hostility (68 percent).
3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly")
in meetings (64 percent).
4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others
(64 percent).
5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the
group (61 percent).
6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61
percent).
7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work
despite evidence (58 percent).
8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for
the target (57 percent).
9. Started, or failed to stop, destructive rumors or gossip about the
person (56 percent).
10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55
percent).
11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either
socially or physically (54 percent).
12. Publicly displayed "gross," undignified, but not illegal, behavior
(53 percent).
13. Yelled, screamed, threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a
person (53 percent).
14. Stole credit for work done by others (47 percent).
15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's
performance (46 percent).
16. Declared target "insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary
commands (46 percent).
17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate
privately or publicly (45 percent).
18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45
percent).
19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, race, accent or
language, disability (44 percent).
20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44 percent).
21. Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for
person singled out (44 percent).
22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person; effort not
stopped by the employer (43 percent).
23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more
mistreatment (43 percent).
24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41
percent).
25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required
tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40
percent)

Source: Workplace Bullying Institute 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces

EEOC Spotlights Employment Testing in 21st Century Workplace

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently (May 16, 2007) held a public meeting to gather information and address emerging trends in workplace testing and selection procedures.  EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp confirmed its efforts to "ensure applicant selection procedures are non-discriminatory."  Applicant selection procedures are not limited to pre-employment testing but include every aspect of selection - from the first observation, resumes, applications, reference checks and so on. 

Rae T. Vann, general counsel of the Equal Employment Advisory Council, a national association of large federal contractors, observed, "When done properly, testing can be a very important tool in the employment selection process..."

What is important to note is that the EEOC does NOT prohibit the use of pre-employment tests.   They only enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination.  Many state-of-the-art assessments are not only valid and reliable but do comply with the regulations by exhibiting minimal adverse impact.

Success Performance Solutions relies on the world's best organizational psychologists and psychometricians to design and validate our assessment systems.  Just as important is their continual effort to improve the predictive nature of the assessments while minimizing adverse impact.

For more information about the EECO meeting, go to http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-16-07.html

Bosses are often the craziest guys around

The USA Today (May 21, 2007) included a review of "Crazy Bosses."  The introduction to the book begins with "After nearly 6,000 years of evidence on the subject, one thing stands clear: the people who end up as leaders in any organization, large or small, are often the craziest guys around."

Author Stanly Bing, pseudonym of Gil Schwartz, CBS' head of public relations, spotlights five crazy boss types:

•Bully. Driven by rage, manifested by frequent mood swings, manipulation and aggression. Most difficult to manage. "Management by terror has been a time-honored technique because it works."

•Paranoid. Motivated by fear, always on the verge of hysteria, highly mistrustful of others. "You can be instrumental in driving him from a low boil to volcanic heights of irrationality."

•Narcissist. Incapable of viewing others as real people with real needs. Short attention span. "Just because the guy is a preening rooster, don't get lulled into the idea that he's benign."

•Wimp. Driven by anxiety, timid, impressed by fads, takes credit for others' work. "Central to the wimp's pathology … is the neurotic desire to be liked by everybody."

•Disaster Hunter. Desire and lust are key motivators, doesn't listen, vicious when thwarted, workaholic. "There are few treatments for workaholics, because society doesn't yet see a need for one."

To read more about "Crazy Bosses," go to http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/2007-05-20-crazy-bosses_N.htm?csp=34

The High Cost of Workplace Jerks and Office Bullies

Workplace jerks do their dirty work in all sorts of ways, ranging from
the subtle to the obnoxiously blatant. Whatever the tactic, workplace bullies pack an
emotional wallop, demeaning and de-energizing employees and customers
alike. 

Jerk-infested workplaces are more common than employers like to think
- or at least admit: Nearly 45% of U.S. workers have toiled for an
office bully, according to a recently released Employment Law Alliance
survey.  This is nearly double the number of workers (27 percent)
reported mistreatment by someone in the workplace in 2000 (The Nature,
Extent, and Impact of Emotional Abuse in the Workplace, Keashly and
Jagatic).  And in a 2003 study, 91 percent of nurses reported they
experienced verbal abuse.  As a result, 12 states are weighing
legislation to keep the statistic in check.

The most extreme and dangerous bullies are the subject of a new book,
"Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work."  Psychopaths!!! Many
of you will likely have the same reaction as I did when I picked up a
copy of new book: you're thinking serial killers and stalkers or
picturing Hannibal Lecter, Freddy Krueger, and Dr. No starring as the
boss.

Reality however paints a far different picture. Psychopathic behavior
is not illegal. It is not in fact even classified as a mental illness.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder and hiring managers today
unwittingly confuse its symptoms with successful work attributes.

For example, how many rising stars have you known who are driven,
ambitious, resilient, charming, articulate, intelligent, and
charismatic? Their mere presence disarms the most skeptical while
their supporters fawn and idolize them. Now remove the incapability of
empathy, guilt or loyalty to anyone but themselves and viola - you
have a psychopath.

In search for high-potential top talent, hiring managers see what they
want to see: candidates exuding "leadership" skills such as taking
charge, making decision, and getting others to do what you want. They
see innovation and risk taking, ignoring how far this individual is
willing to push the envelope. What they miss is the psychopath who has
deftly re-articulated his dysfunctional inclinations of coercion,
domination and manipulation into a socially acceptable package that
lasts long enough to get through the interview.   Authors Dr. Paul
Babiak and Dr. Robert D Hare in their "Snakes in Suits" book write,
"Failing to look closely beneath the outer trappings of stereotypical
leadership to the inner working of personality can sometimes lead to a
regrettable hiring decision."

In addition to turnover, lower productivity, absenteeism and even
higher rates of disability and stress-related illnesses, office
bullies can cost a company a lot of money.  In a recent article in the
McKinsey Quarterly (2007, Number 2) one company calculated the extra
costs (or TCJ = total cost of jerks) generated by a star salesperson -
that assistants he burned through, the overtime costs, the legal
costs, the anger management training and so on.  The extra cost of one
jerk for one year was $160,000.

One study, which included interviews with 30 people who had either
witnessed or experienced workplace bullying, indicated that 40 percent
of the targets left their organizations, while 30 percent of the
witnesses were planning on leaving their workplaces as a result of the
behavior. That survey, based on the direct and indirect experiences of
those interviewed, revealed that 244 employees left their positions
due to workplace bullying.

Employers committed to sustaining a civilized workplace have several
options.  First and foremost is the enforcement of a "no-jerks" rule.
Bullying behavior must be dealt with immediately.  Repeat offenders
aren't ignored or forgiven again and again.  Jerks must change
behavior or change employers.

Have you ever hired an unbalanced employee?

How do employers sleep at night knowing they may have hired--or already have working on their floor--an unbalanced employee plotting revenge? 

Three emails - two blogs and an article -  arrived this morning that addressed the employer's dilemma in dealing with workforce jerks and workplace violence.  All three are worth reading.  I've included the links below.

The Workforce Management article summarizes it best:

"The simple truth is that the same questions required to weed out mentally disturbed gun purchasers ("Do you have a diagnosed mental illness regardless of whether you are receiving treatment?") cannot be asked of a person applying for a job operating a rivet gun or driving schoolchildren on a bus without violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. Savvy employers know that under the ADA, employers may ask only if the applicant is able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation."

That leads to two questions asked on the PA Employment Law Blog and the position the EEOC takes on distinguishing between perception and conduction in its Enforcement Guidance for Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities :

34. When can an employer refuse to hire someone based on his/her history of violence or threats of violence?

An employer may refuse to hire someone based on his/her history of violence or threats of violence if it can show that the individual poses a direct threat. A determination of "direct threat" must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the functions of the job, considering the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence. To find that an individual with a psychiatric disability poses a direct threat, the employer must identify the specific behavior on the part of the individual that would pose the direct threat. This includes an assessment of the likelihood and imminence of future violence.

30. May an employer discipline an individual with a disability for violating a workplace conduct standard if the misconduct resulted from a disability?

Yes, provided that the workplace conduct standard is job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity. For example, nothing in the ADA prevents an employer from maintaining a workplace free of violence or threats of violence, or from disciplining an employee who steals or destroys property. Thus, an employer may discipline an employee with a disability for engaging in such misconduct if it would impose the same discipline on an employee without a disability. Other conduct standards, however, may not be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. If they are not, imposing discipline under them could violate the ADA.

The third posting dealt with bully managers. Don't Tolerate Crazy Bosses - worth reading, too.

New Articles Posted to Success Performance Solutions website

Three new articles have been posted to the Success Performance Solutions (SPS) website. The articles were written by Ira S Wolfe, founder of SPS, and published in Business2Business

May 2007 - Profit Per Employee - Can HR Be Trusted By Management to Get The Job Done? Whether you are the executive of a large cap company, the head of a family owned business, or a staffing executive you must be asking yourself:  “Is the Sky falling?”  “The talent shortage is real and getting worse,” says Lou Adler, president of the Adler Group and noted recruiting industry expert.  For those skeptics who feel all the commotion about worker shortages is mostly hype, there is way too much wind in the Perfect Labor Storm sails to ignore what is happening.  The numbers speak for themselves. The real-life situation is that unemployment is down. Wages are exploding for skilled workers. April 2007 - Generational Diversity: Trust No One Under 30! A funny thing happened this week on the way to writing this column. Laura, the executive director of a national sports association, called me.  Laura was frantically looking for a keynote speaker for their upcoming meeting.  When she first described the topic, I immediately thought “The Perfect Labor Storm.”   Unfortunately they already selected another speaker who was presenting workforce trends and demographics.  Laura had another subject in mind. March 2007 -Motor Mouth Managers Miss The Mark On Interviews A few weeks ago a client asked me to be an observer in a series of candidate interviews.  The first interview began promptly at 9 AM.  Michael was the hiring manager.  After everyone exchanged handshakes and the customary introductions, Michael started talking.   At 9:25 AM, Michael was still talking.  With the exception of a few words at the beginning of the interview, the candidate hadn’t spoken another word.  It’s not that she didn’t want to; she wasn’t given the chance.  From his very first words, Michael took over the interview.  I was amazed how long he could talk without taking a breath.

More HR Articles