from website of Human Resources Magazine at www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au

Employers are increasingly turning to mediation and dispute resolution to resolve workplace conflicts. HR Leader looks at some of the latest trends and reveals the most common pitfalls for the unsuspecting HR professional

Post global financial crisis, Australian employers are quicker to nip workplace conflict in the bud through alternative dispute resolution and workplace mediation processes. Rather than fighting it out in courts and industrial commissions, large employers are intervening in workplace conflict, especially “employee on employee” conflict, much earlier than was the case even two to three years ago, according to a number of experts.

by HR2You at www.hr2you.com.au

Bring Out The Best In Your People

The great leaders create other leaders. What are you doing to bring out the best in your people and creating leaders in your organisation?

 Make your people shine by involving the best communicators on projects, not the ones with the best titles. Be open to these people with new ideas and a creative outlook on the business. They are the ones most likely to drive your business.

If you have a low tolerance to mistakes, then your employees won’t take risks. Empower your employees to take a risk once in a while and build their self esteem. Set guidelines by all means, but give your employees room to breathe and make your business prosper.

 Stretch your employees. Not on the rack, but in their minds. Challenge them to build their skills and their thinking, and you will alter their behaviour. Create the environment that fosters this positive change.

 If you work to bring out the best in your people, you will have the best people.

Sexual Discrimination

A couple of big stories in the news recently around this topic. A former PR at David Jones gave them the kind of publicity that all business owners and managers dread – a media conference to point out the sexual misdeeds of the former CEO and a large compensation claim. The other case involved two former female employees at Airservices Australia suing for being harassed by porn images around the workplace. This case also made the headlines, cost an Airservices manager his job and brought unwanted publicity to the company.

 Both cases could have been avoided. The first one with a solid workplace policy on inappropriate behaviour and training (all employees) on the policy and the consequences of not adhering to it. The second case required not only a solid workplace policy and training, but also an email and internet filter to stop employees bringing and distributing inappropriate images (see Porn Kings in The Workplace).

 Now might be a good time to speak to HR2You on your workplace policies on sexual harassment and internet use and train up your employees on the consequences.

 Have You Been a Bad Boss?

 Being the boss is difficult enough, especially when you need to counter the natural tendencies that separate you from the people you manage. Knowing what to avoid can help you manage your people better.

What should you look out for?

 Know The Value Of Recognition

 Too many times I hear staff complain about the boss not recognising them. Then I hear from the boss saying that they are always complimenting their employees. Why the different views?

 Most often the interaction between boss and employee is limited to a case by case basis. This is where they talk only about a specific task, client, project, sale, etc… The boss says “Well done” and moves on. The employee says thanks, but in their mind they remember staying up all night at home preparing for that task, client, project, sale, etc…

 Many businesses fail to have a formal recognition program to reward employees who have achieved or gone above and beyond the call of duty. Recognition is a big motivator that I hear from many employees and a key requirement in their ideal work environment.

 It doesn’t take much to formally recognise employees, and it goes a long, long way to retaining and motivating them.

 Does Your Office Clique Together?

 Does your office have an inner circle that runs the show? It’s well documented that one of ‘bad’ elements of Kevin Rudd’s reign was the ‘Gang of Four’ that made all the decisions and ran the Cabinet. Cliques in a business can be great for those in them, but they leave many on the outer and in the end be detrimental to the overall business.

A recent poll in the Age newspaper on whether ‘Office cliques are a pain’ shows 76% of respondents say they are silly, unproductive and isolating for anyone outside them. This just leaves a quarter of the workforce thinking they are beaut. As an employer, do you really want three quarters of your workforce feeling left out and annoyed?

 Cliques bring distrust, rivalry, conflict and a dysfunctional workplace. A schoolyard gang mentality appears and important information stops flowing between employees. It is important to take action early and prevent the workforce from becoming polarised.

 Look around your workforce and identify any cliques, what damage are they doing to your business?

 Handy Quote

 “The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work.”

— Agha Hasan Abedi

by Richard Dunks at Vantage Human Capital

http://humanresourceconsultants.blogspot.com/2009/07/failure-to-tell-all-legal-minefield-for.html

This is an interesting article I recently read, by Shana Schreier-Joffe . I think it’s particuarly relevant for employers going through periods of instability and change.

Kate has written previously about the consequences for employers who misrepresent jobs in terms of increased turnover due to employee’s expectations not being met in the job and I think this article provides even more compelling reasons for employers to be upfront with employees.

Richard Dunks

Businesses currently recruiting should be up front with candidates about their business in the current economic climate if they want to avoid exposing themselves to employee claims of misrepresentation by omission.
Companies which withhold important information from prospective employees regarding the future plans and direction of the company or its financial cirumstances, in particular any potential restructuring that may occur in the future, may give rise to legal action by misled employees.

In fact, misrepresentation by omission could affect all companies recruiting in the current environment, and for companies that don’t take heed, potential legal action could include claims for damages for lost remuneration, commissions or other benefits the employee had been promised. For example, if a candidate is offered a role overseeing a team of 15, or reporting directly to the CEO, yet three months into the role he discovers that his team will be reduced or redeployed elsewhere, or that restructuring will greatly diminish his position in the company hierarchy, then he will understandably feel disappointed and even angered that the role has changed so dramatically from what had been originally presented to him.

If these changes were envisaged by the company at the time of recruitment and not disclosed to the employee, the employee may well have some legal recourse.
Most employers have been so used to ‘talking up’ their business to potential employees, that they do not realise how important it has become to be candid in the midst of the current economic climate. Employers who are currently hiring should err on the side of disclosure with candidates.

Employers should carefully consider all communications to candidates regarding the role and state of their business, including any discussions or information provided by recruitment agents acting on behalf of the company. This should include any information provided verbally, in writing or specified within the employment contract. While I can understand why employers might be reluctant to openly discuss potential changes that may occur to their business, or the difficult financial position of the company, potential employees need to have all the appropriate information available to allow them to make an informed decision about their careers and employment situation.

Employers should not hide or try to downplay potential workplace changes, as not all changes are necessarily viewed as reactions to negative business performance. There are many reasons why a relatively well performing business might have plans to restructure or make significant changes to their workplaces, whether to create or maximise a competitive advantage or simply adapt and benefit from current market conditions.

Practical advice to employers:

• Be upfront as much as possible about the state of the business, and any planned changes
• Avoid overstating the role, job stability or future opportunities
• Don’t exaggerate the performance of the business

If there are potential workplace changes that are of a particular concern or likely to impact that role, and which may leave the company at risk of litigation, ensure that they are disclosed to the potential employee. If it will significantly impact the role performed by the potential employee or the employee’s ongoing employment, then ensure details are recorded in writing in the letter of offer or contract of employment.
Shana Schreier-Joffe is a Partner at Harmers Workplace Lawyers

The original link for the full article is: http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/resources/failure-to-tell-all-a-legal-minefield-for-employers-20090629-d1wj.html

by Kate Klease at Vantage Human Capital

http://humanresourceconsultants.blogspot.com/2009/06/using-psychometric-testing-for.html

Psychometric testing is not just for big corporates or high level/technical roles. There are wide range of different testing methods and tools designed to measure, assess or analyse various factors, in fact there are so many tools that one of the most difficult steps is determining what, if any test would be most beneficial.

The first step you need to take before considering psychometric testing is to think about what the main purpose and key responsibilities of the role are, and how this person will need to fit in with the overall organisation and culture. Separate the essential, desirable and peripheral skills/attributes. Once you have a thorough understanding of what you need, you can determine what psychometric tools might be relevant. Remember that you don’t need to test everything, there are many factors that can be determined without the need for testing and you need to decide what is appropriate for your role. For example while it might be appropriate to test the basic technical and numeric skills of a graduate accountant, it is probably unnecessary to do so with an experienced Financial Controller. It is also important to understand the benefits and limitations of psychometric testing in general.

Psychometric testing allows you to measure and analyse specific information that may otherwise be very difficult, or time consuming to accurately gauge. For example, if you know from past experience that the most successful candidates for your role have been highly intelligent, it makes sense to consider intelligence as a fairly important selection criteria. An IQ test will accurately measure intelligence, although as an interviewer you may get a ‘feel’ for how intelligent a subject is your views are based upon your own perceptions and observations, there is a possibility that you could over, or underestimate a candidate’s intelligence. If you are using a credible testing method you can be assured that the results are an accurate indicator of the candidate’s ability or potential without relying on guesswork or intuition.

Candidates are putting their best foot forward during the interview process. They will provide referees they are confident will sing their praises, assure you that they are experts in all your selection criteria and convince you that they are a great fit for the role. Candidates are not stupid, they know what you are looking for (it was in the job ad!) and they are experts at telling you exactly what you want to hear. Unless you have spent time in a previous role perfecting your interrogation and lie detection skills it is wise to use other methods to validate their claims.

There are many psychometric tools that can be used, not only in recruitment but in the retention and development of staff as well. For example, personality or behavioural profiling can be used to gain an insight into particular traits, areas of strength, weakness, work style and preferences. We have all heard the saying that employees don’t leave companies, they leave managers. I think the majority of employees would consider it a ‘career limiting move’ to criticise the boss’s management style; if you understand how individual employees might respond to different situations you can adapt your own style to bring out the best in your staff. Similarly, you can use profiling for internal promotions or reorganising work-flow. By reallocating tasks amongst staff members to suit their abilities and preferences you can increase job satisfaction and organisational efficiencies. We have worked with several client’s recently to re-organise their work-flow and task allocations based upon personality profiling and there has been a significant increase in morale and job satisfaction and also a marked (but smaller) improvement in productivity and output.
Although there is some argument that candidates can ‘fake’ answers to psychometric tests, well researched tests make it very difficult for a candidate to ‘cheat’. Credible testing will have significant research and validity studies to prove that it provides consistent and accurate results, however you should still use other methods during recruitment such as interviews and reference checks to provide you with the ‘bigger picture’.

I have come across many hiring managers who would reject a candidate based upon their psychometric testing without hesitation if they did not perfectly fit the ‘profile’ for the job. Dismissing a candidate based purely on their psychometric testing may be warranted in some unique cases, however it would be unwise to rely solely on the results of a subjective test in making an assessment on suitability. Factors such as high stress levels, mental illness, tragic events such as a death in the family or illness can potentially affect the results of a test; wherever possible, you should use multiple methods to reinforce results.

There are so many complexities to human beings and factors that influence who we are, it would be impossible to define a person through a series of tests and assessments, so while they can be useful, keep in mind that each individual test will have their own benefits and limitations. Putting some thought into what you really want to achieve out of testing will not only save you money but ensure that you are using the most appropriate tools to achieve your objective.

by Kate Klease at Vantage Human Capital

http://humanresourceconsultants.blogspot.com/2009/05/recruitment-101-hiring-right-candidate.html

The market has definitely changed in favour of employers recently, which is great news for the many businesses who have struggled to find quality staff. In the past, you might have been lucky to receive a handful of resumes for any job advertised, whereas many of our clients are now reporting that they are being inundated with resumes, great news again, right? Anybody who has had the experience of arriving to work on a Monday morning to find their inbox flooded with job applicants knows that it’s not always such a great feeling… when everyone has gone home for the day and you are still tackling the mountain of resumes (on top of the usual workload!) you may feel strangely ungrateful.
The real question is how do you take advantage of all this choice and find the most suitable person for the job?

Screening
In a perfect world, every candidate would have a cover letter tailored to your job criteria, with the job market getting tighter hopefully more candidates will engage in this practice as it makes screening resumes quite easy. Don’t spend too long reading resumes, you should be able to get a ‘gut feel’ for how suitable a candidate is in 30 seconds. Create a yes, no and maybe pile for resumes and (depending on volume) consider a quick phone screen with the yes and maybes. A phone screen is not a telephone interview, keep it brief – if you like what you hear from the candidate you can always expand on the conversation later.

Interviews
If you have done the screening process well, you should be left with a handful of people who, on the surface match your needs very well. Face to face interviews give you an opportunity to really put the candidate ‘through their paces’, and equally for the candidate to gain an understanding of the environment and role they have applied for. Many people comment that they can tell almost as soon as meeting a candidate whether they will suit the job, be careful of making judgments so quickly as many interviewers who form a positive impression of a candidate focus too much on selling the job and have a tendency to hear the ‘good’ answers a candidate gives and filter out the ‘bad’ as this subconsciously reinforces their own first impression.
Behavioural or competency based interview questions are essential in an interview. Candidates are putting their best foot forward during an interview, they want the job and know what you want to hear. Don’t just take people on their word if they say they can or have done something in the past, ask them for specific examples to support their claims.

References, Background Checks & Testing
These are subjects that I am quite passionate about, it is NEVER a waste of time to conduct thorough checks on a candidate. But your candidate is great right, they would never lie to you? Unfortunately 80% of candidates exaggerate claims in their resume, with approximately 20% taking more creative liberty with qualifications that they do not hold, jobs they didn’t do and lengths of time with their employers. Telephone references are always preferable to written references, I have never seen a bad written reference and don’t know anybody who would feel comfortable putting negative feedback on paper. It is not always possible to get two references from direct managers in the last couple of jobs a candidate has held for a variety of reasons (boss moved on, company folded etc), but be wary of the candidate who has an excuse for why they can’t provide referees for too many roles. One point that I cannot stress enough is to verify that you are talking to a genuine referee (and not a mate, yes you would be surprised how many people try this); the easiest way to do this is by calling the business, rather than a mobile and confirming the person’s name and job title with a receptionist before being put through.
You have a right as a prospective employer to enquire about any gaps in employment history, and also to confirm the employment periods and job titles a candidate has held in the past as these are material representations a candidate makes in order to get the job. I have often called employers not listed as referees to confirm employment only to be informed that the person never worked there, held a completely different title or the dates of employment were wrong. For many people going through this process might seem like overkill, you need to decide what is reasonable for your role. I once discovered a candidate applying for an accounting job had been in jail for fraud, and covered it up by lengthening his employment history at a previous role. While these situations are thankfully the minority, you take a huge risk missing by simply assuming that people are telling the truth.

If it is practice that you conduct criminal history checks, drug tests or medicals as a condition of employment always be upfront with candidates at the beginning of the process. I have seen people suddenly decide the job they seemed so excited about was not for them after they were informed they would need to be drug tested prior to an offer being made.
Psychometric testing is also often used by employers to analyse a candidate’s suitability and potential in a role. I believe it has a valuable place in recruitment and selection, however it’s important to ensure that the testing is appropriate for the job. If your role doesn’t require a candidate to have advanced mathematical skills it is a waste of time and money to put them through a test that measures this ability, there is no need to put a candidate through the stress of a battery of unnecessary psychometric testing.

It is important to use more than one method (i.e. interview, testing, and references) during the recruitment process to increase the probability that your new staff member will be successful in the role. The below table briefly outlines the predictive success of independent methods, however success is greatly increased when you combine methods.

On a final note, the most common reason we hear from candidates who have left their roles within 12 months is that their expectations in the role were not met. If there is not much room for growth or the candidate will be expected to work long hours it is best to be upfront, you want to find a candidate who will be happy in the job. Going through the recruitment process may seem tedious, but hiring the wrong person is costly, both financially and from a time perspective. On average the cost of getting it wrong is equal to the employee’s annual wage, but this can be far greater in sales or senior management positions. Consider the time it takes you to go through the recruitment process, the time and money spent training and developing the employee, lost productivity while a job is vacant etc etc! Sometimes the recruitment process might seem tedious, but having a happy and productive employee as a result of your hard work is a great feeling that is well worth all the effort!