Category Archives: employee engagement

Workers in the West Like Bosses Best

When it comes to finding someone to blame for issues like, say, sagging retention rates or sinking employee engagement scores, managers sure seem to take it on the chin a lot.

Kristen Frasch, our managing editor, pointed out as much on Monday, using the HRE Daily space to reference just a few fairly recent reports that underscore managers’ supposed shortcomings.

The bulk of Frasch’s post, however, focused on Red Branch Media CEO Maren Hogen’s recent “love letter” to managers, in which she offers an “ ‘atta boy’ and ‘atta girl’ to those blamed for everything from a lack of snacks in the workplace to why you can’t have ‘just one extra week off,’ ” and encourages disgruntled employees to also look at themselves when trying to pinpoint the source of their unhappiness.

Now, just days later comes a survey from CareerBuilder that should give managers—more than half of them, anyway—another reason to feel good about themselves.

The Chicago-based employment website and HR software provider polled 3,031 employees, asking respondents to rate their supervisors’ performance, assigning them a letter grade between “A” and “F.”

Overall, 62 percent of employees graded their bosses’ performance as either an “A” or “B,” with 22 percent giving their manager a “C.” Ten percent said their supervisor merited only a “D,” with the remaining 6 percent reporting their superiors had failed, earning an “F” for their efforts.

Pretty solid scores for most managers, but those in the Western region of the United States seem to be doing something particularly special.

On average, Western-based bosses were graded higher, with 32 percent of respondents giving their supervisors an “A” grade, and 35 percent saying their manager deserved a “B.” Workers in the Northeast were a tad more critical, with just 23 percent handing out “A”s to their bosses, and 34 percent reporting their managers were worthy of a “B.”

What’s the secret to supervisors’ success out West? The answer may lie in a laid-back managerial approach that employees seem to respond to in a big way.

For example, 30 percent of workers in the West said they interact with their boss once a week, or less, in person. More than one-quarter of employees in the South (27 percent) said the same, as did 24 percent of respondents from the Northeast and 23 percent of workers in the Midwest.

Less face time doesn’t necessarily equate to less feedback, though. In fact, 69 percent of employees in the West said they feel their bosses provide enough guidance and input, while 59 percent of workers in the Northeast feel their managers offer sufficient support.

In a statement, Rosemary Haefner, CareerBuilder CHRO, reckons that “we’re starting to see a slight shift of favor toward management styles that are seen as a little more hands-off, which employees view as trust from their bosses.”

Naturally, there’s a point where a manager can become a little too detached. The key, of course, is finding the sweet spot between aloof and overbearing, which many managers—especially those in the Western states—have apparently recognized.

“Everyone craves respect,” says Haefner, “and it seems like bosses in certain regions have figured out the perfect balance to keep subordinates happy.”

Twitter It!

A ‘Love Letter to [all the Bad-Rapped] Managers’

Who hasn’t heard and read the reports in the last few years on the real reason employees leave their employers? Bad managers, right? 522472388 -- managerNo doubt anyone visiting this site has seen and heard them.

We’ve certainly written our fair share, from criticizing managers’ reluctance or inability to truly promote career development to pinpointing the need for managers to grow their big-data skills to lamenting the unhappiness and decimation of the middle-management ranks in general, which of course supports the theory that unhappy managers make for bad bosses.

Which might be precisely why this recent post by Maren Hogan on the HR Examiner site, My Love Letter to Managerscaught my eye, an eye that’s always on the lookout for something counterintuitive (warning, she doesn’t hold back on some of her descriptors). That or the fact that I am a manager, so a love letter to me … well … what’s not to like?

Counterintuitive does seem to be the operative word here, when you consider all that’s been said about retention and turnover, and the especially egregious part managers play. As Hogan puts it,

“Retention issues? It’s the manager’s fault.
Productivity problems? Blame the manager.
Engagement dipping? Someone get management in here!

Can this really be true? After all, many of these problems have roots in giant, macro issues. The economy, changing workforce dynamics, an always-on mentality spurred on by technology advances. It’s sort of simplistic to blame the manager, isn’t it?”

I especially like what she says about this mega-trend, if you will, of citing management as the reason people leave work, hate work, aren’t engaged and aren’t productive. She thinks this trend “could be part of a blame culture that has slowly seeped into our workforce over the past couple of decades.” In her words,

“Whether we’re blaming millennials for the faster pace and fancy [results-only-work-environment] perks, or blaming executives for the glaring inequality between them and us, or blaming managers for every issue in the workforce, very few seem to be stepping up to take personal accountability.”

She’s got some helpful suggestions for employees who might be prone to disparaging their managers, such as considering how they, themselves, might change the situation before blaming their direct supervisor; doing better and faster work if they don’t like what’s been assigned to them so they can prove they’re capable of taking on something more interesting; taking self-assessments of their most-productive times during the workday and building their reputations as team players; and even getting better at confronting difficult and destructive employees themselves, so managers aren’t blamed for failing to take action.

So why am I sharing this with you? Well, first, I kind of agree with Hogan that managers have taken a bad rap for far too long for the ills of corporate culture.  More importantly, though, I believe employers and their HR leaders could go a long way toward curing some of those ills by paying more attention to the workloads and expectations placed on their managers.

They might also consider committing serious capital to training all employees in personal accountability, starting with Hogan’s list above.

Twitter It!

Pawternity, Could it Happen Here?

A good bit of attention has been paid recently to a phenomenon taking shape across the pond.

521075238 -- petsIt seems a growing number of companies in the United Kingdom — mostly smaller start-ups — are beginning to offer their employees what’s being called pawternity leave; i.e., paid-time-off to bond with their new four-legged furry friends or tend to their old ones.

This piece that appeared on the appropriately-named website, “The Bark: Dog is My Co-Pilot,” mentions several employers that have gone this route — Mars Petcare, BitSol Solutions and Now What.

At Manchester-based IT company BitSol, company owner Greg Buchanan says pawternity is actually good for the bottom line, according to this piece in USA Today.

“You know, we are quite sympathetic to pets in the U.K.; we’re a pet-loving country,” he tells the paper. “Obviously we take it on a case-by-case [basis]. If somebody’s asking for time off for a goldfish, no, no — then it’s not quite what we set out for.”

He also cautions that “[i]f you do give time off for pawternity leave, you are limiting the number of people available to you.” However, he adds, “I believe morale of staff definitely improves and they actually want to work harder for you.”

The Bark piece puts the number of pet owners in the U.K. who have been offered time off to care for Fido or Fluffy at nearly one in 20. It also mentions that Mars Petcare, a pet-care company, was one of the first employers to institute a formal pawternity policy, now allowing its employees 10 hours of paid leave when adding a new pet to the family.

Based on his recent column on the U.K trend toward better treatment of its workers, I reached out to HRE‘s talent management columnist, Peter Cappelli (George W. Taylor professor of management and director of the Center for Human Resources at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia), to see if this four-legged phenomenon could happen here.

“I’d say the U.S. model of just giving people personal time for whatever is important to them makes more sense than trying to define legitimate reasons for leave,” he told me. But he did seem impressed with how far the Brits will go in their efforts to accommodate pet owners.

Personally, I have been thinking about getting a dog lately. And being single, I’m concerned about what will get chewed or stained while I’m at work. Not even sure the effort would be worth it without a benefit like this.

But …… moving to London seems like a pretty drastic solution.

Twitter It!

‘I’m Not Your Mother!’ In Defense of Happiness

Figured the day after Mother’s Day was a perfect time to run with a post I’ve been hanging on to for a while from China Gorman, then CEO of the Great Place to Work Institute, now board chair of Las 520179370 -- happy workerVegas-based management consultancy Universum North America.

Her title? “I’m Not Your Mother!”

Now before you start imagining a tough stance on the softer side of workplace culture, I’m here to tell you this is all about the importance of breeding out-and-out happiness at work. But, as Gorman writes, it took some ups and downs and ins and outs to get her to this point:

“Early in my career as a business leader, I always believed that people were my critical competitive edge and that creating a strong, caring culture was my job. But happiness? Come on. I wasn’t my employees’ mother.

“The nature of the employer/employee relationship, I believed, was a commercial relationship. Employees come to work, do a good job and I pay them. The more I could remove obstacles from their ability to do good work, the more I could offer development and thanks for a job well done, the better they performed. Its wasn’t rocket science. Treat people well and they’ll treat your employees well. I got that. But trying to make them happy? I didn’t think that was part of the deal. And I was a pretty effective business leader.”

Then she matured. She spent some time at Zappos — “a culture whose leader is all about making his workforce happy,” she says. And while the Zappos culture wouldn’t be a fit for her, “it worked for them,” she adds. “And they were happy. Really happy. And their business results were such that they could sell the business to Amazon for over $1 billion.”

Sitting atop the Great Place to Work Institute, says Gorman, she was deluged in data proving there was “a direct line from employee well-being to financial performance.” As she puts it, that’s where she took a turn:

“And so, while early in my career, the notion of employee happiness didn’t register as a leadership imperative, I now believe that creating a culture that … delivers happiness to employees is quite clearly a practical and effective way to achieve top-line growth, profitability, customer loyalty and, most importantly, employee loyalty.”

As the chair of the WorkHuman Advisory Board at Dublin, Ireland-based reward and recognition company Globoforce, Gorman also came across that company’s recent white paper, The Science of Happiness. It cites some pretty compelling research posted by the Wall Street Journal and the iOpener Institute that finds happy employees:

  • Stay twice as long in their jobs as their least-happy colleagues,
  • Believe they are achieving their potential twice as much,
  • Spend 65 percent more time feeling energized,
  • Are 58 percent more likely to go out of the way to help their colleagues,
  • Identify 98 percent more strongly with the values of their organization, and
  • Are 186 percent more likely to recommend their organization to a friend.

I love how Globoforce puts it in the paper:

“It is tempting for many to think of company culture in terms of fringe benefits — like funky offices, on-site massages and free soda. These outward trappings of companies with great culture are often what we think of when we think of Great Places to Work.

“But perks grow from culture, not the other way around. Perks are just the manifestation of what makes a particular group of people [your employees] happy. Likewise, leaders tend to see culture in terms of things they can do — like setting goals and core values. Their participation is an important part of the picture, and trust in leaders is one of the key drivers of engagement, but execs cannot dictate a great culture. They can only lay the groundwork for a great culture to take hold.

“It is your employees who control your culture. When they are happy, it thrives. If they are stomping around complaining … well, your culture probably stinks — no matter how great your mission statement is or how free your dry cleaning.”

A few things to think about as you contemplate “mothering” your workforce into an entire family of engaged, productive and happy people who support your bottom line.

Twitter It!

Survey: Employees Only ‘Moderately’ Engaged

The good news, according to the Society for Human Resource Management’s latest Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement Survey, is that employee satisfaction is at its highest level in 10 years, with 88 percent of respondents saying they’re satisfied with their jobs. The bad news? The number of employees who say they plan to look outside their current company for a new job is also up, at 45 percent. SHRM announced the survey results at its Talent Management Conference in Orlando earlier this week.

The keyword for holding on to employees is spelled R-E-S-P-E-C-T: 67 percent of the 600 employees surveyed ranked “respectful treatment of all employees at all levels” as “very important” to job satisfaction, followed by overall compensation/pay and benefits, job security and “opportunities to use skills and abilities,” which tied for fifth place with “trust between employees and senior management.”

As for employee engagement, actual engagement levels are little-changed from last year’s survey, said Evren Esen, SHRM’s director of survey programs, coming in at 3.8 out of 5 with 5 being the highest, showing that employees are “moderately engaged.” Satisfaction and engagement aren’t always aligned, with engagement typically tied to employees’ connection and commitment to their work and organization, she said.

One of the top factors affecting employee engagement are the engagement level of their coworkers, said Esen. “If employees don’t see those around them as being engaged, this will impact the overall level of engagement in the organization,” she said.

Being engaged means feeling that you’re an important part of the organization’s mission, she said.

“The opportunity to use their skills and competencies is of continuing importance to employees – it gives them a sense of engagement and pride,” said Esen. HR should develop a “skills matrix” for employees to get a better sense of “what they do well, not just what they do” in their everyday jobs, she said. This will make it easier to determine if there are other ways employees could be contributing and – by extension – feel a tighter connection with the organization.

“Nobody is going to feel sustained doing the same job over and over,” she said.

Dissatisfaction with their compensation and benefits was a top reason why employees plan to look for new jobs, the survey finds. Sixty three percent of employees chose overall compensation as “very important” to them, yet only 23 percent described themselves as “very satisfied” with their own compensation. Similarly, 60 percent chose overall benefits as very important, but only 27 percent said they were very satisfied with their benefits.

“Companies have only reinstated some of the cuts to benefits they made during the Great Recession,” said Esen. “Organizations really need to focus on what benefits their employees really want, and offer the ones that appeal to all demographics of their employee base.”

HR must also keep in mind the needs of a multigenerational workforce, she said.

“Millennials want their ideas to be valued and not dismissed just because they’re younger and less-experienced,” said Esen. “Boomers want to be valued for their experience, but often feel they’re not sufficiently valued for it. It’s important to keep both groups satisfied.”

Twitter It!

Rethinking Employer Values and Brands

Some interesting points about employer value propositions and employer brands in this recent piece by Susan LaMotte that I came 514648428 -- megaphoneacross on the HR Examiner website.

As her title makes clear, she’d like us all to start Rethinking EVP and Employer Brand Like You Never Have Before.

“We tweet, post and chat about our culture and employment experience,” she writes. “We worry about job descriptions and [applicant-tracking-system] branding. We choose just the right images for our careers site and collateral. But what exactly are we talking about?”

Here are some of her favorite descriptions, none of which really capture what makes any particular employer unique: “It’s a great place to work,” “We’ve got a great culture,”  “For me it means … ,” and “I love to work here because … .” As she puts it,

“We tend to talk in generalities and personal choices because we’re not sure what else to say sometimes. And that’s where the EVP comes in. EVPs are so often used to explain why employees work for a company. We often interchange it with employer brand. But over the years, it’s become a muddled mess. Maybe it’s time for a reset?”

First, she says, when you ask your employees what they value in their employment experience, your EVP is the sum of those common themes. Second, an employer brand is a subset of the EVP.

“If the EVP is all the things employees value,” according to LaMotte, “the employer brand is what you choose as an organization to hang your hat on when you market your employment experience.” As she describes it:

“Think about it like a new car. There are a ton of great things customers may value in the car. And things the car’s engineers think are worth touting. But the marketers at the car company know you can’t sell everything. So they have to choose. How do they choose? The same way the engineers decided what should go in the car: research. Let research be your base, then use marketing to sell.”

She goes on to lay out the best steps to take to find out what employees value most in the organization and what candidates want. Next on the list is narrowing the focus, she says:

“There are likely 10, 12, 20 themes that may comprise your EVP. Don’t try to sell a laundry list. Use your company’s core values and business strategy to narrow down your focus. And consider two key things marketers know well: You have to sell the reality [and] you have to consider what your audience wants.”

“Finally, build that brand. Once you decide what to hang your hat on, sell it over and over and over again. Weave the messages in varying ways through all those channels you’ve spent so much time on — social media, websites, job descriptions and branded platforms. Pull those messages through to job fairs, recruiter conversations and on campus. Whatever you do, just take the time to think it through.”

I ran LaMotte’s premise by the folks at the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), the Seattle-based human capital research and data firm, because much has come from that organization over the years pertaining to employer brand and EVP. Got some interesting and very thorough comments from Jay Jamrog, i4cp’s senior vice president of research:

LaMotte, he says, “correctly points out that there is a lot of confusion around the differences between employer brand, employee [and employer] value proposition and talent brand; and, they are often used interchangeably, as the article does when it trie[s] to articulate what needs to be done.”

So what does Jamrog suggest? “I believe the first step is to clearly define each term and then determine how to develop a strategy to leverage each one’s potential.” With that in mind, he says, here goes:

Employer brand:  How a business builds and packages its identity, origins and values, and what it promises to deliver to emotionally connect employees so that they, in turn, deliver what the business promises to customers.  Some of the ingredients that make up the employer brand are:

  • Company culture and history,
  • What a company stands for,
  • Work/life balance,
  • Rewards: compensation and benefits
  • Leadership and employee behaviors
  • Work environment

What to consider when developing an employer brand:

  • What employer brand you have already built?
  • How does your employer brand support your business strategy, and your talent strategy?
  • How well do your employees understand and believe in your customer brand?
  • How committed are your employees to deliver the brand to customers?

Employee [or employer] value proposition:  Articulation of the value proposition is a shorter version of the employer brand that helps potential and current workers answer the question, ‘What’s in it for me?’ In many cases, the EVP is part of the employer brand and contains many of the same characteristics.

Talent brand:  Marketing of the employer brand and/or EVP to critical talent segments of the potential and current workforce, to become known as a magnet for talent.  It’s purpose is to create demand that attracts, retains and engages the right people to do the right work at the right time with the right results.  To do this, you need to segment the workforce and determine which roles are 1) critical to the business’ success and 2) difficult skills to acquire.  Then you need to treat the talent in these critical roles as “consumers of work.” To attract consumers of work, you need a compelling brand proposition as a place to work for that special critical role/skill.

To create a talent brand you need to:

  • Have a talent strategy,
  • Develop marketing strategy,
  • Segment the workforce, and
  • Articulate your employer brand.

There you have it. Lots of definitions, descriptions and bullets in this post, but just in case it helps … or at least adds to the discussion … it’s all yours.

Twitter It!

Learning from Exiting Employees

Whenever we ask employment and HR experts about the value of exit interviews, they inevitably arrive at the same, logical conclusion: Departing employees can be a source of priceless advice that, if acted upon, may just save you from losing talented workers in the future.

Taking action, of course, is the key. And the problem, as the experts have always pointed out, is that some (many?) employers don’t do enough with the information gleaned from exit interviews to address the issues that soon-to-be-former workers bring to light.

Take heart, however. Menlo Park, Calif.-based staffing firm Office Team offers evidence that more companies are getting the message.

Office Team’s recent survey of more than 300 HR managers found 63 percent of these respondents saying their organization commonly acts on feedback received in exit interviews.

How are they reacting? When asked how they follow up after conducting said interviews, the most common actions were to update job descriptions (29 percent), discuss feedback regarding management (24 percent), make changes to the work environment/corporate culture (22 percent) and review employee salaries (19 percent).

The poll also asked HR managers how often their firms act on the information gathered during exit interviews. Thirty-five percent said they do “somewhat often,” while 28 percent reported taking action “very often.” Another 24 percent indicated they instigate change based on exit interview feedback “not very often,” and 13 percent said they “never” do so.

In a press release highlighting these findings, Office Team offers some tips for getting the most out of these final sit-downs with employees about to leave the organization. For example:

  • Time it well. Consider scheduling the meeting on one of the worker’s last days. Keep the conversation brief and professional.
  • Don’t make it awkward (and make sure HR is involved). Because departing employees may be uncomfortable discussing certain topics with their supervisors, have an HR representative conduct one-on-one meetings in private settings.
  • Don’t get defensive. Avoid correcting or confronting the employee, and listen carefully in order to gather as many details as possible.
  • Don’t brush things off. Give all comments that are shared the proper attention. Also, check for patterns in feedback collected from employees, which can signal persistent problems.

“The only silver lining to losing employees is obtaining useful feedback to help stem further turnover,” says Brandi Britton, an Office Team district president, in the aforementioned statement.

“Departing workers can provide valuable insights that current staff may be reluctant to share. Although not every criticism will be worth responding to, the most crucial issues should be addressed immediately to help keep existing team members happy and loyal.”

Twitter It!

… But What About Gen X Workers?

What will we do as the baby boomers retire en masse, and take their decades of knowledge and experience with them? And these millennials, who many projections say will soon make up nearly three-quarters of the U.S. workforce—how do we harness their considerable abilities and put them to the best use within our organization?

Organizations everywhere have wrestled with the questions and challenges surrounding these unique groups of workers in recent years.

But there’s another, large group of employees in the middle that may not receive as much attention. Some new research, however, suggests that employers would be wise to focus more on Generation X and the many assets this dedicated cohort can bring to the workplace.

As a card-carrying member of Gen X, I absolutely remember a time when we were mostly thought of as a pretty apathetic bunch with no real work ethic. (Not that we cared about these perceptions or felt like expending any effort trying to change them.) But this new survey, conducted by the Futurestep division of Korn Ferry, finds that Gen Xers—defined in the study as those born between 1965 1980—are actually the most engaged employees in today’s workforce.

Indeed, 52 percent of the 1,070 executives responding to the recent global poll said as much, compared to 23 percent saying they see boomers as the most invested in their jobs, and another 23 percent feeling the same way about Gen Y workers. (The remaining 2 percent felt those fresh-faced, barely-out-of-their teens comprising Generation Z are the most engaged.)

“While members of each generation are critical to the workforce and their diversity of thought brings new ideas and insights to companies, organizational leaders would benefit by harnessing and rewarding the hard work habits of Gen Xers,” says Andrea Wolf, Futurestep’s North American HR practice leader, in a recent statement announcing the findings.

So, what can employers offer to attract these hard workers and provide the perks that make them want to stay?

According to the survey, feeling they have “the ability to make a difference in the organization” was most important to 39 percent of Gen X-age employees in the workplace. That figure is more than double the number of respondents citing “job stability” (16 percent) or “development opportunities” (15 percent) as what matters most to these workers.

In terms of retention, 41 percent of respondents said experiencing “a sense of pride in their work” was what kept Gen Xers in their current jobs, with 24 percent most valuing “financial stability” and 23 percent prizing “company culture” above all else.

And what kind of benefits get those notoriously indifferent Gen Xers revved up about their jobs? Money helps, of course, with 48 percent of respondents pointing to “pay and bonuses” as the most important benefit to employees in this age group, followed by “paid time off,” at 25 percent, and “retirement plans,” at 19 percent.

While Gen Xers might say they want time off, don’t count on them to take it, says Wolf.

“Talk to a Gen Xer about his or her vacation, and they’ll say they’re too busy to take one, or they had to cut it short because of work,” she says. “Employers may want to consider rewards other than extended vacation time to attract and retain this group.”

Too busy at work to take vacation? Thinking about retirement? Wow, there was a time when we were too busy slacking off and obsessing over Seinfeld to even look for a job or consider our financial futures. Gen X has really come a long way.

Twitter It!

Not Your Father’s Factory Floor Anymore

Today’s top manufacturing firms are hardly in the category of your dad’s or granddad’s factory of yore anymore. At least, that’s 473081406 -- factory workersaccording to the latest Great Place to Work Report on this sector,  Best Workplaces in Manufacturing & Production 2016, released a week ago today.

The report cites dramatic changes in industrial production and “a new employment deal defined by high levels of trust” that are prompting companies to “retool their relationships with employees as they compete for a shrinking pool of skilled workers,” says the report’s release.

The top manufacturing and production workplace for 2016 is Houston-based energy company Hilcorp. Electronics manufacturer Tactical Electronics, headquartered in Broken Arrow, Okla., ranks second on the list of 15 firms, followed by orthopedic surgical supply manufacturer Arthrex Inc., based in Naples, Fla.

As Michael Bush, CEO of Great Place to Work, puts it, the leading manufacturing and production companies “know the game has changed.”

“The best workplaces in the industry know they can’t just churn out their products with warm bodies,” he says. “They need to focus on attracting and retaining top talent by putting people first, in a high-trust culture. That’s how they are winning in the market.”

The list is based entirely on anonymous employee feedback from more than 34,900 randomly selected employees from companies in this sector. The winners do seem to defy outdated perceptions of working in factories and manufacturing plans.

For instance, in terms of job security, 92 percent of employees at companies on the list say their leaders would lay people off only as a last resort. That’s even better than the response from people at companies on the broader ranking of the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, which includes organizations in healthcare and technology that are experiencing much faster growth.

And forget about the stereotype of fat-cat executives in conflict with poorly paid assembly line grunts. An average 82 percent of employees at the best manufacturing and production workplaces say they receive a fair share of profits. Hilcorp, for example, gave out $100,000 bonus checks to all employees last year after it met five-year goals.

In fact, here’s the official rundown from the report of some of the neat things gong on at top-winner Hilcorp.:

  • Buy-In Incentive Plan: This unique long-term incentive program provides all full-time employees with the opportunity to build personal wealth over time by allowing them to participate in Hilcorp projects and, as the projects start generating positive cash flow, the employee begins to share in the return.
  • Bonus Program: Every employee’s annual bonus is aligned with company goals — “When Hilcorp Wins, We all Win” — and bonus payout percentages are the same for all full-time employees. Hilcorp’s bonus stretch goal is 60 percent and, during the past five years, employees have received an average of 36 percent of their base salary.
  • The Hilcorp Giving Program: The company will establish a charitable trust of $2,500 to help employees support any U.S.-based 501(c)(3) organization. Hilcorp also helps increase an employee’s giving power by providing ongoing machining gifts up to $2,000 per year. Employees have donated more than $7 million to matching charities of their choice through this program.
  • Mega Plans – BHAG’s: Every five years, Hilcorp sets a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) that is truly a stretch goal with equally audacious rewards! For example, the latest BHAG, Dream 2015, was recently achieved by doubling the rate, reserves and value in five years. Everyone received (prorated based on hire date) $100,000!!!

As a result of their employee-focused approach, companies that made the list have an average turnover rate of just 7.2 percent, much lower than the national industry average of 13 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Keeping that turnover low will offer a real advantage to these companies in the years ahead, the report says. As the president of the National Association of Manufacturers recently pointed out, the sector is expected to create 3.5 million new jobs in the next decade, but a lack of skilled workers is likely to leave 2 million of them unfilled. On top of the skills deficit, the industry also faces the challenges of an aging U.S. workforce and rising labor costs in Asia that make it easier to “insource” many of the jobs that left the United States in decades past. It continues:

“In this context, the Best Workplaces in Manufacturing and Production aren’t just exceptional for their people policies. They’re at the forefront of an entire industry that will need to create high-trust work environments in order to stay competitive in the years ahead.”

And in the words of Anil Saxena, Great Place to Work partner and workplace-culture consultant:

“There’s a lot of hiring in manufacturing, and there’s a lot of demand in manufacturing. [The perception of the sector as less-than-glamorous needn’t be a barrier to retaining valuable people.] If you treat your employees with respect and you involve them in your decision making, they’ll go the extra mile for you, regardless of their job title.”

Twitter It!

Maersk Goes Global with New Maternity Benefits

You might say the parental-benefits bandwagon has just charged into the world arena. Copenhagen, Denmark-based Maersk Group 505017852--pregnancyannounced recently that, starting April 4, it will be implementing a new global guaranteed 18-weeks-minimum, fully paid maternity leave  for all its female employees.

Worldwide, the maternity policy would affect more than 23,000 employees. Once implemented in the United States, it will boost the current six-weeks leave to 18 for more than 1,200 women. It will also improve terms for women working for Maersk in at least 51 countries.

In addition, it will include a return-to-work program, giving onshore employees the opportunity to work 20 percent fewer hours at full contractual pay within the first year of birth or adoption.

“This new policy supports our aim to retain our talents and attract even more in the future — this way, strengthening our business results,” says Michael White, president and CEO of Maersk Line North America.

Maersk Line’s Asia Pacific Chief Robbert Van Trooijen, in a recent story on Seanews.com, says the new policy “supports our aim to retain the talented women working in the group and attract even more to gain access to future and wider talent pools … .”

The move was predicated on research conducted for Maersk by New York-based KPMG suggesting maternity-leave policies have an influence on the labor-market participation by contributing to higher employement rates of women.

The move doesn’t mark a first in the recent march by large, big-name companies to enhance parental-leave benefits in an effort to boost retention, reputation and employer brand. A search of this HRE Daily site yields numerous posts about this march, some might say race, to board the parental-leave bandwagon. So too does a search of HRE‘s website, HREOnline.com.

So will there be more bandwagon jumpers globally, what with Maersk leading the charge? I put this question to Kenneth Matos, senior director of research for the New York-based Families and Work Institute. What he had to say is worth sharing, particularly as it applies to HR leaders:

“I do believe that more multinationals will be pursuing improved maternity-leave and other benefits policies. One, because centralized and standardized benefits programs are easier to manage than a grab bag of varied policies impacted by an array of international legal frameworks. Offering everyone a high-end multinational program is easier to manage, avoids lawsuits from accidentally violating a country’s laws with a policy legal in another country, and avoids organizational culture clashes as employees around the world compare their benefits.”

He goes on:

“I believe that a single, affordable, multinational benefits program is the holy grail of the benefits industry. Second, there has been a recent wave of organizations attempting to outdo each other on employee benefits. The battle for talent is reigniting as the predicted retirement boom begins to pick up steam — reducing the size of the workforce –and more jobs require uncommon skills that take years of education or experience to cultivate — a major problem for a shrinking labor force.

“Organizations will want to be seen as leaders and many HR executives and benefits teams should prepare for calls from senior executives to benchmark their benefits programs against their competitors.  It is essential for HR executives to keep cool heads and examine their benefits in terms of what their people want and need rather than offering extensive benefits just to make a social or political statement. Especially if the organizational or local  cultures will suppress the usage of these elaborate offerings or interest will wane over time and leaders might call for a reversal if the benefits structure doesn’t work for their organization and staff.”

Sounds like advice worth heeding, or at least considering.

Twitter It!