The HR Ratio Or "How Many Employees Does It Take to Screw Up an HR Department?"

Ok, ok, I know this title made some of you bristle with outrage. But calm down, it was more to get your attention. What is the proper HR-to-Employee Ratio is a question frequently asked by people new to HR. Sometimes it is even asked by people not so new to HR. And if you ever get it asked by your CEO you had better know the answer.

This is the calculation. Though it is seldom expressed in terms of this calculation. It is generally experessed in terms of 1:100 or 1:250 or 1:400..... you  get the idea.

But knowing that calculation is not the answer to the question. Because the answer is "It depends." But if the CEO is asking you the question that is not what you say. Because you should know what the "DEPENDS" factors are for your company, your company size, your leadership, your industry and your sophistication. For example in The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance authors Becker, Huselid and Ulrich talk about research that shows that companies that had low quality of HR leadership had a ratio of 1:253.88. Companies that had high quality HR leadership had a ratio of 1:139.51. Research as also shown that the ratio also depends on these following factors:

• Company size. Smaller companies may actually have a smaller ratio because much of the process are not automated and therefore require more people to get them done. (Either that or the person works themselves to death. A situation often expressed to me.)
• Sophistication. Companies that are technologically adept may have smaller ratios due to automation, such as self-enrollment or online performance evaluation.
• Level of Outsourcing. Obviously the more funtions of HR you have outsourced the fewer HR people you need on staff.
• Service model. Your model for delivering HR services to your "customer" base will require different levels of staffing and hence a different ratio. A company I once worked for had 30 HR members for 1000 employees. A ratio of 3:100. That was because we had a "high touch" service model. The more complex or sophisticated your employee perhaps the higher the ratio.
• Dispersion of the employees. If you have a decentralized structure and want to have a decentralized HR department you will probably have a larger ratio than will a centralized structure.

You do have to be careful, regardless of the reason, to not have HR people for the sake of having HR people. You must remember that there needs to be an appropriate Return-on-Investment (ROI) for the number of HR people you have on staff. So that requires you to be able to determine what that ROI is and if it is desirable in your organization.

So gather your information. One source of information, and the inspiration for this post, was SHRM's benchmarking reports . They are available to both members and nonmembers. (I get no compensation for suggesting them.)

If you want to read another blog post that does an excellent job of talking about this subject click on HR Ratio versus HR Contribution. This is a well written post by Magdelena Meller of breakpoint HR from about a year ago.

By the way, the answer to the question of "How many employees does it take to screw up an HR department?" is "IT DEPENDS." It is your call.

Are You Willing to Wait for Quality? Are Employees?

In a Wall Street Journal online article entitled Starbuck Baristas Told No More Than Two Drinks writer Julie Jargon relates that Starbucks is trying to improve the quality of its product by slowing down the baristas that make the drinks. (I find it amusing that someone with the last name of Jargon writes on Starbucks, the place where people ask the question "Why is a small called a tall? And why is a grande the medium size?") Ms. Jargon relates that making coffee at Starbucks has become too assembly-line-ish and as a result the quality has suffered. Workers were trying to meet the demand of lines as the register and lines at the drive-thru and thus making multiple drinks at a time. Rather than steaming milk for one drink they were steaming milk for mulitple drinks at a time, etc. So Starbucks has told its baristas (the people who make the drinks) to slow down and make no more than two drinks at a time and explain to customers that the wait is the price for a quality drink (that and the $4 you are spending on the drink.)

Now I have to admit that my first take on this headline was that they are telling to employees that they cannot drink more than two drinks a day. I thought perhaps they were trying to go through a massice detox effort. After all I have seen some seriously wired employees. But at the same time with some of the lines I have seen someone seriously wired was needed to work fast enough to handle the demand. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. There is one component that will make sure that this fails.

That component is the feedback given to the employees. If they now receive negative feedback for not serving people fast enough, subsequently getting poor performance reviews, they will find ways to short cut the process in order to meet the demand. The quality effort will fall flat on its face. After all the store manager does not get an immediate measure of quality of drink produced, but they do see lines and they do hear complaints about how long it is taking. So managers may be tempted to short cut the rules or they will put additional pressure on employees to be faster. Either way, the corporate effort is not successful.

My personal solution? I only order coffee, in my own cup and I add my own cream and sugar. I am responsible for the time, and my cost is minimal. But what about you? Are you going to wait for Quality? And more importantly is that barista going to wait to produce it?

No Great Ideas: But Great Referrals

I had a great idea, but lost one resource I was going to use. Once I find it again I will post on the subject of Non-competes. But in the meantime I read two great posts that you NEED to read.

The first is about the best COMMON SENSE explanation of the Paycheck Fairness Act I have read. Stephanie Thomas writing at the Compensation Cafe takes the emotion out of the subject and uses examples to explain how this will affect your workplace. You MUST read this. The "Commonsense" Bill and Its Nonsensical Implications. She is consistently a good writer and well worth putting on your "must read" list.

The second blog post is one that makes you really think. In The One-Eyed HR Professional in the Land of the Blind... Paul Herbert uses an HG Wells story to talk about the downside of imposing your opinions on others. (And admit it, HR often does that.) I am still mulling this post over. Perhaps it will also make you go "hmmm" too. (And for those of you that like Kurt Russell without his shirt on there is a picture."

Will You Hire a Moustache?

Watching the Atlanta Braves play the San Francisco Giants it was apparent that the teams are pretty evenly matched. The games have been close in score and exciting to watch. But it became apparent very quickly that appearances differed greatly. The Braves are more "clean cut" sporting no long hair and little facial hair, other than the occasional goatee. The Giants on the other hand have very prominant long haired players and they even have a relief pitcher called "The Beard." Flipping through the NFL games it is also apparent that long hair is making its comeback. So is that being reflected in other industries?

Those observations combined with an article on the online WSJ, called Read My Furry Lip, made me think about facial hair in the workplace. The article, written by Ruth Graham, asks the question "Are we ready for a President with a moustache?" She makes the observation that "According to Allan Peterkin, the author of "One Thousand Beards: A Cultural History of Facial Hair," whiskers are taboo in arenas in which faddishness is frowned on and the appearance of transparency is prized." Mr. Peterkin, whom she quotes, says further that  "The generalization I'd make about modern facial hair is it's playful rebellion. And do you want a politician who's into playful rebellion?"

So the conclusion of the article is that presidential hopefuls will probably not be successful if they sport a moustache or beard. But what about the workplace? What are the trends today? Is wearing facial hair really a "playful rebellion?" And are you up for playful rebellions in your company?

I have sported a moustache, a beard, and a goatee a various times in my life. Once to make me look older, a couple of times to be somewhat rebellious,  a couple of times just to be different. Today I don't have one because I think it does make me look older and at my current age I don't want to go there. But in each case my facial hair was grown after I had a job, never before.

So my question to HR pros and recruiters is "Do you hire candidates that have facial hair?" Does this color your opinion of them? Is that industry dependent? Is is position dependent? Are blue collar candidates with facial hair more likely to be hired than white collar coandidates? Or is it an age thing? If you are older is it more acceptable? Let me know by leaving a comment.

Of course all this assumes that your candidates are male. Whether to hire female candidates sporting facial hair becomes a much different issue.

HR Should Never Be Involved in a "Turf War"

In the Thursday October 7 Wall Street Journal in the Marketplace section there was an article entitled Coming of Age, written by Joe Mullich. (It appeared in a special advertizing section on Workforce Risk. Other than mentioning CVS several times I am not quite sure what it was advertising.) The article talked about the aging workforce population and how we (yes I am a Boomer) are not rushing to retire and the challenge this is presenting to companies. So Mullich talks about the approach that several companies (most notably CVS) are taking to manage the risks, responsibilities and opportunities presented with Baby Boomers staying in the workforce. I recommend the article it was a good read.

But that is not what I wanted to write about. Mullich made a comment that struck a chord with me. He was relating a story about a company that was instituting alot of changes to help their older workers perform their jobs better, such as new flooring, changes in tools, etc. to minimize injuries and illnesses for older workers. The program met internal resistance. And who was giving them the biggest pushback? THE HR DEPARTMENT! The initiative was started by the Risk Management Department and as Mullich says "... the Human Resources department didn't like that its terrain was being encroached upon." So much for having a strategic orientation. He concludes his statement with "This is an age-old dynamic."

That is what struck the chord with me. I have seen those types of "turf battles" in a number of organizations. The training department operates independantly of HR and neither can stand the other. The Safety department is part of Risk Management or Manufacturing and HR feels infringed upon. You even get battles going between recruiting and HR. None of these turf battles are good for the organization. A true strategic HR professional would know that and would lead or coordinate a multi-functional effort to solve a problem or introduce a change initiative. In the example above, rather than HR having a pissy attitude about what Risk Management had done they should have jumped on the band wagon and realized that such an effort was probably important in other areas of the company and not just on the plant floor. They should have been asking the question "Where else can we apply the lessons learned?"

There is a quote from one of my favorite movies, The Princess Bride, in which two of the main characters are having a contest. Vinzzi, the kidnapper of the Princess Bride, and the Man-in-Black, who has come to rescue her are having a contest of wits. Vinzzini says "You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"

I offer similar advice to HR departments and professionals. Never get involved in a turf war in your company. You will not be well served, the company will not be well served and your standing in the company will be diminished. Coordinate, cooperate and work for the best interests of the company and the employees.

(BTW, The Princess Bride is a classic movie that should be watched by all. The rest of Vinzzi's quote was " but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha..." Right after which he dies. )

Legislation Introduced to Strip States of "Right to Work" Status

The newsletter LaborUnionReport.com  reports that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) has introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to strip states that are "right-to-work" states of that status. There are 22 states that are considered "right to work" as shown in red in the picture above. This was a state right granted in 1947 by the Taft-Hartly Act, an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act. (Taft-Hartly is officially the Labor-Management Relations Act, and it granted managment rights where none had been.)

Briefly, what "right to work" means is this. Employees in every state of the US have the right to organize a union. If they do so, two different conditions exist, depending on whether they are in a "right to work" state or a non-right to work state. In a non-RTW state an employee, in order to hold their job, must belong to the union if that job is covered by the union contract. They have no choice. When I was the HR manager in a union plant in Chicago, if I hired someone for a job and wanted to keep them after their probationary period, they had to become a union member otherwise I had to fire them. If that had been here in Georgia, a RTW state, they would have had the choice to become a member of the union. Regardless of their choice however, they would have kept their job. So it is a matter of freedom of choice for the employee. Some places they have that freedom of choice, other places they do not.

Congressman Sherman, who represents California, a non right-to-work state, says that it is unfair to California to have to compete with RTW states for jobs. He says it is costing California because companies are moving away and taking jobs with them. (Of course he doesn't mention the overburdensome employment laws, taxes or broken government in California. Employment laws in California are so different there is a separate PHR designation for CA) So, with the support and endorsement of the AFL-CIO, he has introduced legislation in Congress to strip ALL rights from the other 22 states that had the foresight to pass right-to-work legislation.

I would like to suggest to Congressman Sherman that perhaps there should be an introduction to make all states RIGHT TO WORK. This will level the playing field as well, potentially lower the cost for businesses, take away restrictive practices, and give employees a true free choice to belong to a union or not. If a company then has a union in place they will truly deserve it. But if employees do not wish to belong to one there will be no pressure of Job/No Job decisions.

Of course with a 100% endorsement of the AFL-CIO I doubt whether this option ever entered Rep. Sherman's wallet....errr... head.

Just Because You Sent a Message Does Not Excuse Your Lateness

I  really dislike being late. I try to be on time to all my appointments. And I dislike people who do not keep appointments with me. Yes, there are situations where it cannot be avoided, such as a road being shut down, etc. However, chronic tardiness, whether at work or in life is not acceptable as far as I am concerned.

What prompted this little rant was an article in the Tuesday edition of the Wall Street Journal. The article was entitled Sick of This Text: 'Sorry I'm Late' By Elizabeth Bernstein. The author relates a story about a friend who was late, and was chronically late, but thought the tardiness was "ok" because she had sent a text message that she was going to be late. As if the message sent 5 minutes ahead of the appointment was the equivalent of being on time. The ability to send a text message, and thus avoid even speaking to someone, has made tardiness even a bigger issue.  Bernstein concluded in her article that the ultimate harm in tardiness was that you showed a lack of respect for your friend. I agree and think it shows a lack of respect to the other party in general. It cries out "MY TME IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR TIME."

Of course in human resources we have been dealing with tardiness issues forever. We track it, we counsel on it, we discipline it, we make sure it is being dealt with in an equitable manner to keep our collective butts out of court and we fire people over it. But we are also guilty of it as well. I have know recruiters who were chronically late to interviews. In fact I have known some who use that as a power play showing the candidate who had the upper hand in the interview. I have know hiring managers, for whom I had scheduled an interview, to be late and leaving me holding the bag apologizing to the candidate. I have also had candidates be late for interviews. I have never liked any of it. My feelings were generally anger and that anger was due to the fact that I did not feel the person respected my time. So I think Bernstein is onto it but that many others are missing the point.

There are many ways to deal with someone who is late. You can leave before they get there, sending a message that they missed the appointment. You can punish the behavior in some way. But perhaps the best thing is to make it clear that it boils down to respect. Managerial training should include that lesson. Counseling sessions to employees should include that lesson.

Most importantly, teach that lesson to your children. What do you think? Will it work? Do you have other suggestions?

 

Does Unemployed = Unqualified? Refusing to Hire the Long-Term Unemployed

A trend in hiring seems to be developing. According to Don Chapman, a reporter for the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, an increasing number of companies, looking for both white collar and blue collar workers, are specifying in the "Want Ads" that workers who have been unemployed since 2009 need not apply. In his article "Long-term jobless told not to apply" Mr. Chapman relates a number of stories of applicants being turned away because they have been unemployed for more than six months.

The reasons being given by employers vary. The include:

• We only want people who have current skills
• We only want people who are motivated
• Someone thought they were deadwood, why would we want them
• If they were good they would be employed
• Using time of unemployment as a screening tool lets us keep our applicant pool manageable.

The question is: Is this the proper way to go about this? Sure I understand some of the reasoning and motivation behind what is being done, but I can think of other ways to accomplish this without the VERY PUBLIC DOWNSIDE to running an ad like this. And what is the downside? Here is a list.

1. First, you get your company named splashed all over the front page in a very negative way.
2. You may be engaging in disparate impact which will get you investigated by the EEOC. AND THEY ARE WATCHING. Disparate impact comes from the fact that a larger percentage of the long term unemployed are racial minorities, older workers or the disabled and by having an across-the-board ban on long term unemployed applicants you are discriminating against them. You will have the burden of proof in defending your "bona fide" business reason for using that selection process.
3. You are SCREAMING "COME AND ORGANIZE US"  to any union paying attention. If you are "unfair" in one aspect of your business you may be "unfair" in another and your employees may be good targets for the "help" of a union.
4. You may actually be missing some very good workers. Maybe an applicant has gone and gotten recent training in the job for which they are applying and thus may be more current or safer than even the people you have on staff right now. If you will not accept their application you will never know. You may also be missing people who will be hard working and productive because they have had a taste of unemployment and they don't like it. They want to avoid it in the future and so they will bust their butts to be good in order to avoid it in the future.

So what can you do to avoid having to look at 10,000 applications? Here are some suggestions:

1. Be more specific in your minimum requirements. "Must be able to lift 50 lbs. and have warehouse experience" is going to get you way too many people. Besides you have to be willing to make a reasonable accommodation on the lifting. If you have a particular warehouse computer system then make experience with that a minimum requirement. Increasing your "minimum requirements" and stating that they are a minimum will help some.
2. If you have a particuar skill that is necessary and you want to make sure that the applicant has it use a screening test. There are commercial tests that have been shown to be both valid and reliable that will help you cull through applicants.
3. If you are anticipating a large volume of applicants and don't have the staff to handle it, then consider outsourcing the process.
4. Don't accept applications if you don't have an opening.

Those are just a few suggestions. I am sure my recruiting friends out there can come up with other suggestions. Or do some of you think this trend is the best way to go? I would like to hear some "PRO" arguments if you have one.

I know the truism that "a currently employed candidate is the best candidate" is still widely held in the business world among HR people. However, in today's world it may not be so true and certainly may not be the most prudent method to use to fill most jobs.

Thought Provoking Blogs: Inspiration for the Week

I have been searching around this morning for a topic to post on. I haven't been successful in finding a single topic to post on. Rather I have been successful in finding three good topics to post on. But rather than write about them myself I am going to direct you to the original posts. They are thought provoking and informative. Your week will be off to a major start if you educate yourself by reading these three blog posts.

First up is More Insider HR Tips: What Are HR Pros Saying About You? This was written by Mary the Undercover HR Director. It is base on a session she attended at SHRM 2010 conference and was published on August 24, 2010. It deals with FMLA abuse and the reaction that HR gives those abusers and also the way that non-abusers are treated. It is a very interesting lesson for HR in overeaction.

The second one is also written by Mary the Undercover HR Director. She writes about employee use of the ADA to get accommodation, the interactive process that must be engaged in and the costs associated with an ADA accommodation. (Which by the way is suprisingly low.) Written from an employee perspective, you need to check out How To Request Job Accommodations From Your Boss By Using the ADA.

For the third entry I suggest Mad Men, Madder Women: Have Roles Really Changed in the Workplace? I don't watch the show Mad Men though my daughter has told me I should. And apparently it is favorite of many HR people because it has been the subject of numerous blogs. In this post/article Vivian Dillar talks about the two of the main female characters and their changing roles as a reflection of what was happening in the workplace in that time frame. This is a very thoughtful piece that may very well prompt me to watch the show as fodder for future blogs and, again according to my daughter, just some excellent entertainment.

So there you have it. Some brain jazzing reading to get yourself going on a Monday morning. I needed it, since my day started at 4:30 am and the coffee was not working to its full extent.

The Importance of Reading: What Is On My List

One of my favorite "reads" is the monthly newsletter of Alan Weiss called the Balancing Act. It is full of advice for life, consulting and dealing with people. It is educational and often amusing. In this most recent issue Alan makes the comment "The debate whether you're reading books in hard copy or electronically is immaterial. The question is: Are you reading books?"


I mentioned the other day that I was posting (or trying to post) five times a week and occassionally a sixth time. Another person's remark to that was "I don't know how you do it, I don't have that much to say." Well part of the way I do it is from reading. Other blogs, newspapers (the actual paper kind), online news stories and books. I actually have two stacks of books on my desk here beside me to be read of reread. Here is what is there.

• Engage: The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web 
• Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
• Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard
• How to Acquire Clients: Powerful Techniques for the Successful Practitioner
• What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures
• The Talent Advantage: How to Attract and Retain the Best and the Brightest
• Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?
• Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy, Second Edition
• SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
• The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization
• Thrive! Stop wishing your life away
• Thinking about the Future, Guidelines for Strategic Foresight
• The Abs Diet: The Six-Week Plan to Flatten Your Stomach and Keep You Lean for Life
• The Abs Diet 6-Minute Meals for 6-Pack Abs: More Than 150 Great-Tasting Recipes to Melt Away Fat!
• Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us
• Pursuit of Honor: A Novel
• Anna Karenina (I am reading this one on my IPad)
• The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America
• 25 Big Ideas: The Science That's Changing Our World

Well there you have a glimpse into my mind based on my reading list. What is on yours? And more importantly if you had ONE book you would recommend I read what would it be? (other than the Bible.. got that one.)

In summary the importance of reading books is you get NEW IDEAS, NEW WAYS OF THINKING, REVISIONS OF OLD IDEAS, GUIDANCE AND ENJOYMENT. At least I do. I always think of the statement I once read LEADERS ARE READERS.