CIOs Value Experience Over College

collegeIf you’re in the tech field and still struggling to pay off those hefty loan payments for your Ivy League degree, the following will not make you feel better: A new survey from Robert Half Technology finds that 71 percent of chief information officers prioritize skills and experience over college degrees when making hiring decisions, while only 5 percent say they’re heavily influenced by a job candidate’s impressive alma mater.

The survey is based on more than 2,400 telephone interviews with CIOs from a random sample of U.S. companies. The CIOs were asked “When evaluating a candidate for an IT position, what value do you place on the prestige of their college or university?” Seventy one percent chose the response “I place more weight on the skills and experience than on whether or not a candidate attended college/university.”

Technology is not the only field that appears to value experience over a sheepskin: A recent Glassdoor survey of 2,059 adults finds that 72 of them believe specialized training to acquire specific skills is more valuable than a degree in the workplace, as my colleague Mark McGraw noted.

“We see [organizations] placing less emphasis on the academic credentials, and working harder to better identify the skills and experience that are needed within the company,” Glassdoor’s Rusty Rueff told McGraw.

Organizations have viewed college degrees as a way to identify candidates whom they believe have the drive and willpower necessary for success, to the point of requiring degrees for positions that previously didn’t require them. But now, perhaps, the pendulum is beginning to swing in the  other direction.

Twitter It!

HR Gets an Upgrade at Apple

HR has long been something of a mystery at Apple. In our effort to compile our Top 100, a list of chief HR officers at the nation’s 100 largest employers, we often struggle to get a response at Apple. Eventually, we do manage to get the information we’re after, but it often takes more than a few follow-up calls and emails to get it.

apple-logoDuring his tenure as chief executive officer at Apple, Steve Jobs was known as someone who didn’t give a whole lot of credence to HR. In fact, it’s said that Jobs, in interviewing an applicant for the position of vice president of HR, once said, “I’ve never met one of you [HR people] who didn’t suck. I’ve never known an HR person who had anything but a mediocre mentality.”

Perhaps these words are merely an urban legend, but if he did indeed say them, they’re a pretty harsh assessment.

Well, as you know, Jobs selected Tim Cook, then Apple’s chief operating officer, to replace him soon before his passing in 2011. And since then, there’s been no shortage of stories that attempt to address how Cook’s leadership style differs from Jobs. Search the web and I’m sure you’ll find quite a few. But for those of us in HR, an appropriate follow-up question might also be: Is HR viewed any differently today under Cook?

I recently ran across at least a partial answer to that in a post titled “These VPs report directly to Apple CEO Tim Cook” on Business Insider. The story reports that Apple recently expanded the group of executives featured on its executive profiles page—from nine to 14 (there are actually 15 there)—and now includes the company’s heads of special projects, environmental initiatives and, yes, even HR. All report to CEO Tim Cook BTW.

In case you’re wondering, HR today is led by Denise Young Smith, who previously headed HR for Apple’s retail division. Smith officially took over the top HR post earlier this year from John Podolny, who now heads Apple University and is also one of the 15 on the executive profiles page. We learned of Smith’s appointment just in time for us to include her on this year’s Top 100 list, though, despite our efforts, we weren’t able to determine who she reported to.

When I asked Jason Hanold, managing partner of Hanold Associates, an Evanston, Ill.-based executive search firm specializing in senior HR positions, whether things have changed under Cook as far as HR is concerned, his response was an unequivocal yes. He noted that a few folks he knows well recently joined Apple, and there’s little question the firm is elevating its people capability and emphasis.

Today, Hanold says, “they get that they will compete best and most sustainably with the best talent driving the most compelling innovation and products.” He adds that Apple is showing no signs of complacency, given the talent they are bringing on board today.

Personally, I would put that under the category of good news for the firm, though who can question Steve Jobs’ truly amazing track record. Who knows, perhaps this could even be a sign that going forward, HR at Apple won’t be nearly the enigma that it’s been in the past.

Twitter It!

Paving Co. to Pay for Steamrolling Whistleblowers

A Michigan paving company has been found in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration for wrongfully terminating a foreman and two truck drivers after they had raised safety concerns after being directed to violate U.S. Department of Transportation mandated hours of service for commercial truck drivers.

According to a release from OSHA, the Pontiac, Mich.-based asphalt paving company was ordered to reinstate the three employees to their former positions with all pay, benefits and rights. The company was ordered to pay a total of $953,916 in damages: $243,916 in back wages to the drivers, $110,000 in compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages.

“It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against employees who report work-related safety concerns or violations of federal transportation regulations, which require drivers to have a minimum 10-hour rest period between shifts,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA is committed to protecting workers from retaliation for exercising basic worker rights.”

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act covers private-sector drivers and other employees of commercial motor carriers. Companies covered by the STAA may not discharge their employees or retaliate against them for refusing to operate a vehicle because doing so would either violate a federal commercial motor vehicle rule related to safety, health or security, or because the employee had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to themselves or the public because of a vehicle’s safety or security condition.

Any of the parties in this case can file an appeal with the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the STAA and 21 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, worker safety, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime and securities laws.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government. Employees who believe that they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor to request an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets, is available at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.

Twitter It!

Increasing Pay, Increasing Challenges

Not sure how you’ll read this, whether you’re the full-glass or half-glass sort, but this latest survey from Mercer shows pay raises are growing steadily … albeit in .1-percent increments.

180274674 -- pay raiseAccording to the New York-based global consulting firm’s 2014/2015 U.S. Compensation Planning Survey, the average raise in base pay is expected to be 3 percent in 2015, up slightly from 2.9 percent in 2014, 2.8 percent in 2013 and 2.7 percent in 2012.

No leaps and bounds, certainly, but indicative — we’d all have to agree — of a steadily improving economy and job market, no?

Granted, .1-percent increments may not give your employees the wow factors they’re looking for as they mull whether to stick around or try out greener-looking pastures. And this can be especially worrisome when you consider what it will take to keep your highest-performing workers on board and happy.

Which leads me to another survey finding: that the range between increases to high-performing employees and those given to lower-performing employees continues to widen. Specifically, the survey shows, the former received average base-pay increases of 4.8 percent in 2014, compared to 2.6 percent for average performers and 0.1 percent for the lower performers.

“Differentiating salary increases based on performance has become the norm,” says Rebecca Adractas, principal in Mercer’s rewards consulting business. “Investing in those employees [who] are driving organizational performance has become a necessity.”

So has making sure the good ones have more than one reason — pay — to stay.

Mary Ann Sardone, partner in the firm’s talent practice and regional leader of its rewards segment, says employers are also “continuing to provide rewards beyond compensation, in the form of training and career development.”

“Employee engagement and retention continue to be a top priority,” she says.

So, on the glass-half-empty end, if you’re not doing everything you can to figure out who your top performers are, what they want and how you can provide it, you will inevitably be caught with your proverbial pants down.

On the glass-half-full side, at least things are looking up … ever-so slowly but surely.

 

 

 

 

 

Twitter It!

Destroying the Barriers to Vet Hiring

Despite the impressive images earlier this week of Special Op forces landing on a mountain top in Iraq to scout out a possible rescue option for refugees stranded there (and, in turn, help prevent an even more nightmarish situation from occurring), the reality is the U.S. military has been in the process of drawing down personnel from the Middle 477606281East, with the last U.S. troops currently due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016. A natural outgrowth of this drawdown, of course, is the need for these individuals to find jobs in the private sector. You’d think that might not be an insurmountable challenge, considering many of these vets bring with them amazing skill sets that make them ideal candidates for a long list of positions, including many at the leadership level.

Yet while there certainly have been plenty of stories about the commitment forward-thinking organizations are making to the recruiting and hiring of vets — including some published in HRE and on its website — there still remains a significant number of stumbling blocks that stand in the way of making this happen. True, many companies are taking significant steps in that direction. Earlier this month, 100,000 Jobs Mission, an organization with the goal of bringing together companies committed to the hiring of U.S. military veterans and military spouses, reported that member firms have hired, since its founding in 2011, a total of 161,752 U.S. military veterans through the second quarter of 2014. (The 165 companies now involved in the group pledged to hire 200,000 veterans by 2020.) But there’s little question plenty of barriers remain for these returning vets, including many put in place by employers themselves.

So what factors are standing in the way of returning vets landing jobs? In an effort to answer that question, Christopher Stone, a University of Texas at San Antonio Ph.D. student, is in the process of leading a research study – announced yesterday in a press release issued by the UTSA – aimed at uncovering what might be at work here. Stone, who is about two years into his research and has, thus far, developed a model for understanding factors affecting the hiring decisions of vets, recently co-authored an article titled “Factors Affecting Hiring Decisions About Veterans” (requires purchase) that appeared in the July edition of Human Resource Management Review and proposes several hypotheses and potential solutions. (No surprise Stone — who also discussed the research earlier this month at the 2014 Academy of Management annual meeting in Philadelphia — selected this as a research project, considering he served in the Air Force for eight years, first in an aircraft-maintenance unit overseas and then as a military training instructor.)

As might be expected, two of the primary barriers identified by Stone and his colleagues include stereotyping and a lack of understanding as to how military skills transfer over to civilian roles. According to the UTSA press release, the researchers used a model based on the treatment of people with disabilities to suggest specific steps employers might want to consider as they reassess their veteran hiring strategies (or lack of them), including:

  • Using education programs to dispel stereotypes, publicize veterans’ job successes and change the organizational culture to emphasize the value of hiring veterans;
  • Employing decision makers who value hiring veterans, recognizing and rewarding those who hire veterans, expanding recruiting to find talented veterans and giving bonuses to employees who refer veterans to the company; and
  • Familiarizing decision makers with military jobs and the associated knowledge, skills and abilities that are similar to civilian positions.

I’m sure many of your organizations are already doing some, if not all, of the above. But, that said, considering the significant talent challenges companies are facing today and extraordinary skills many of these vets are bringing to the table, I would think the timing couldn’t be better for employers to take inventory of what they’re doing and ask themselves, “Are we doing enough to ensure we’re not standing in the way of our progress?”

Twitter It!

Survey Finds Skepticism on Private Exchanges

skepticsimThe National Business Group on Health’s latest health-benefits survey finds that large employers anticipate holding their healthcare benefit costs to about 5 percent next year, in part by continuing to shift more of the cost burden to employees, broadening their use of wellness programs and making high-deductible consumer-directed health plans their only benefit option (the number of employers that plan to do this for next year jumped by 50 percent).

Another option that’s attracting interest from large employers is private exchanges. Just 3 percent of large employers will offer their active employees health coverage through a private exchange next year, the survey finds; however, 35 percent said they’re considering doing so for 2016 or beyond. But employers are skeptical about the ability of these exchanges in two key areas: Only 17 percent said they’re confident that exchanges will do a better job of engaging employees to make better healthcare decisions and just 10 percent believe they’ll control costs better than their own plans.

Another report, this one from Accenture, finds that private exchanges are experiencing “hyper-growth” and that enrollment could exceed that of the public health exchanges (which have enrolled about 8 million Americans so far) by 2017. Approximately 3 million individuals could enroll in health plans via private exchanges this year alone, according to Accenture.

Whether or not these exchanges will be successful in engaging employees and lowering or stabilizing healthcare costs may depend on the features they offer: According to an Accenture survey of 2,000 U.S. consumers, 87 percent identified “tools to help project my expenses and select coverage levels” as an important feature, and 58 percent identified this as a “very important” or “critical” feature.

For readers wanting a bit more information on private exchanges, check out this comprehensive checklist by HREOnline’s benefits columnist, Carol Harnett.

Twitter It!

Liar Liar, You’re Still Hired

liarWe all know lying is wrong. But we’ve all done it. And those who say they’ve never told a lie—not even a tiny little white one—well, they’re probably not being truthful.

That goes for job seekers too. It’s not uncommon for hungry applicants to embellish their skills and experience a bit, in order to pump up their resumes and increase their odds of getting a foot in the door.

But what happens when a candidate gets caught trying to put one over on a hiring manager? That may depend on the severity of the lie, and the potential an employer sees in the person who told it, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey.

In a poll of 2,188 hiring managers and HR professionals, 51 percent of respondents said they would automatically dismiss a job candidate if they uncovered a lie on his or her resume. Interestingly though, 40 percent said their decision to move forward with an applicant who lied on a resume would depend on what the candidate lied about. Another 7 percent said they would be willing to overlook a lie if they liked the candidate.

Dave Ulrich, professor of business at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, was “surprised” at the number of hiring managers willing to look past an applicant’s stretching of the truth, however small the fabrication may be.

“I tend to be quite strongly in the 51 percent who believe that, if someone lies [about] little things, he or she might lie [about] bigger things.”

Some may contend that not all information on a resume—titles or job duties, for instance—is of equal importance, says Ulrich.

“But I would argue that even these less significant facts signify an attitude of integrity,” he says. “The messages on the resume signify the candidate’s style. Applicants would be better served demonstrating candor and transparency to build relationships of trust.”

Indeed, many hiring managers (more than half, according to the aforementioned survey) wouldn’t exactly rush to put their faith in would-be employees they saw as being dishonest right off the bat. And there are some fibs—or flat-out, obvious lies—they may not be so inclined to forgive. Enjoy this sampling of some of the most unusual lies employers reported catching on resumes:

• A candidate’s job history included a stint as the assistant to the prime minister of a foreign country. (Just one problem—the country in question does not have a prime minister.)

• One hopeful boasted on his resume that he was a high-school basketball free throw champion. (Not sure how Kevin Durant-like consistency from the charity stripe would even apply to the workplace, but he fessed up to his lie in the interview nonetheless.)

• A 32-year-old applicant indicated having 25 years of professional experience. (He or she must have been one smart, hard-working baby.)

• And, speaking of babies, one job seeker claimed to have worked for 20 years as a babysitter for celebrities such as Madonna and Tom Cruise.

I actually feel for the prospective employer in this last case. It’s too bad this candidate was lying, because I’d think an employee with that kind of experience could be a big help in dealing with divas and difficult bosses in the workplace.

Twitter It!

Mood Readers in the Workplace

The BBC is reporting that technology maker Dell is working on “a mood-reading application” for both home and office use as soon as 2017.

Dell Research’s Jai Menon told the BBC that its researchers were currently working with specialized headsets to see if they could be used to give a reliable indication of whether the wearer was happy, sad, bored or frustrated.

“If I can sense the user is working hard on a task, an intuitive computer system might then reduce distractions, such as allowing incoming phone calls to go directly to voicemail and not letting the user be disturbed,” he suggested.

“Similarly, if they’ve been concentrating [for] a long time, maybe it could suggest a break.”

The BBC also reports that Dell isn’t the only big tech firm vying to enter the mood-reading market:

Microsoft has announced a series of mood-reading research projects, including Moodscope – software to infer a user’s mental state from their smartphone use – and a “smart bra” that monitors heart and skin activity to detect stress and emotions.

IBM has tested uses for brain-monitoring gear at its research base in Hursley, England.

While the idea of mood-recognition technology may tease the mind with its various possible uses both at home and in the workplace, the BBC managed to find an expert willing to express his mood (impatient) in a way that requires no specialized technology to decipher.

“I think the potential for these things is astronomical, but we’ve been told this technology has been five years away for decades,” said Dr. Bernie Hogan, a human-computer interaction expert from the University of Oxford.

Twitter It!

Early Birds vs. Night Owls: Which is More Ethical?

77741160 -- worker and clockDespite what you may have heard, the likelihood that an employee will make an ethical decision in the morning more than the evening has as much to do with his or her “chronotype” as it does the actual time of day.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Psychological Science titled, “The morality of larks and owls: Unethical behavior depends on chronotype as well as time of day” (downloadable), co-authors Brian Gunia of Johns Hopkins University, Christopher Barnes of the University of Washington and Sunita Sah of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business quash the existing theory that individuals are more likely to be unethical as the day wears on due to a loss of energy and effort to exert self-control and behave ethically.

Instead, they say, their research proves ethical behavior has more to do with the fit between an individual’s chronotype, or best/preferred time of day, and the actual time of day. The study shows morning people working in a night shift were more likely to be unethical than morning people in a morning shift, and night people in the morning were more likely to be unethical than night people at night. This suggests people may be more likely to act unethically during the “mismatched” time of day.

“Ethics is not a stable trait in people,” says Sah. “Instead, people exhibit dynamic patterns of unethical behavior across the day based on their circadian [cyclical fluctuations in sleep propensity] rhythms. By understanding their chronotypes, people can help predict when ‘the better angels of their nature’ will appear.”

The study, according to this release, challenges the existing “morning morality effect” that claims ethical decisions are mentally taxing and normal daytime activities deplete our limited cognitive resources as the day goes on.

In addition, the researchers found sleep “can have a significant impact on ethical decisions,” Sah says.

“Our research suggests that early-rising owls or late-working larks will be more likely to make seemingly small, unethical decisions that could have larger consequences.”

So what are managers and HR professionals supposed to do with this information? How can they mitigate this risk? Sah suggests learning the chronotypes of employees and creating work structures, schedules and hours that match individuals.

Requiring morning folks to make challenging, ethical decisions at night or vice versa could “run the risk of encouraging unethical behavior,” the release states. “Employers should also carefully consider overtime, shift work, flextime and requirements during Daylight Savings Time clock changes.

“By understanding chronotypes and the significance of the time of day,” says Sah, “individuals can become more ethical in the way they work, the quality of their work and the decisions they make at any moment.”

And employers, the researchers claim, can help make that happen.

Who knew?

Twitter It!

Are Drones Targeting Your Job?

This morning, I came across an interesting piece on the ABC News website titled “How Drones Will Replace Humans in the Workplace.”

462430535True, this probably isn’t the most burning issue facing HR leaders today, but the commercial use of drones is certainly a topic we’re starting to see a lot more of in the news lately. If there’s been a tipping point here, it probably was Amazon CEO Jeff Bezo’s revelation on 60 Minutes last December that the world’s largest online retailer was exploring the use of drones to deliver packages to its customers.

Since then, drones have left the war zone and have started to appear in our backyards. As a story appearing in The Des Moines Register pointed out last month, real-estate is a natural, with agents “increasingly taking their work to the skies, using remote-controlled aircraft to film bird’s-eye-view video tours of homes, land and commercial properties.”

Asking what jobs might be at risk if and when drones are given clearance by the Federal Aviation Administration to take off commercially, the author of the ABC News piece quotes Mary Cummings, a drone expert who teaches at MIT and Duke University. Cummings suggests delivery jobs, such as UPS and FedEx, are likely candidates, along with police jobs. “Crop dusters might also find their risky work outsourced,” she adds.

(As you might expect, there was no mention of HR jobs. No speculation that, one day, drones might be delivering pink slips to remote workers included in a reduction-in-force.)

A number of obstacles, of course, lie in the way of this becoming a reality, including the need for the FAA to ease up on regulations. But experts expect it’s just a matter of time for that to happen.

In the ABC News piece, Cummings also suggests workers, in general, don’t really need to sweat the commercial use of drones catching on.

‘Ultimately,’ she says, ‘drones will create more jobs than they replace, they will save lives and they will give us capabilities we only dream about—like everyone owning our own flying cars.’ ”

 

Twitter It!