SHRMLV - Member of the Day - 3/19/13

The Lehigh Valley Chapter of SHRM is pleased to present the HR 101 Seminar Series

This series of 6 seminars is geared towards those new to the HR profession/function, those who would like to strengthen their skills in a specific area, line managers seeking developmental training in HR, office managers and small business owners. Seminars include: HR Overview, Basics of Employment Law, Interviewing and Hiring, Compensation Overview, Payroll and Benefits and Conflict Resolution.  For a complete list of seminars and dates, see the Events page of our website.

The first seminar in the series is HR Overview on Friday, March 22nd

Seminar #1 provides an overview of human resource roles and responsibilities.
Presenters:  Gail Benkovic, HR Manager, Environmental Standards
                        Steph  Fenstermacher, Corporate HR Manager, Computer Aid, Inc.
Date: Friday, March 22nd
Time: 8:00 a.m. - 12 Noon (Registration and breakfast beginning at 7:30 a.m.)
Where: Best Western, Bethlehem
Cost: $100
(OR $500 for entire HR 101 Seminar Series of 6, see the Events page of our website for complete list of topics and schedule)
Register
HRCI Credit Pending


Article any source

The HR Professional: Rock Drummer or Backing Vocalist?

Welcome to Discuss HR, the HR blog written by Human Resources UK. 

Today we welcome a late addition to the blog.  I am very pleased to say that the seasoned blogger and experienced HR pro Graham Salisbury has joined our ranks.  Here is his debut post. (Ed Scrivener)

The HR Professional: Rock Drummer or Backing Vocalist?

Here’s a simple question to hopefully get the grey cells in motion:

What do you actually doas an HR professional?

By that I don’t mean what are the component parts of your job, such as recruitment, reward and performance management, but what is the overall purpose of what you do each day? In your organisation, who sets the agenda for what the HR function is trying to achieve?

Clearly these are questions that the HR profession has wrestled with for many years, but it doesn’t seem to me that we have reached any resolution on them so far.

During the course of completing a Masters in HR a couple of years ago, my literature review led me to Karen Legge’s snappily titled “Power, Innovation and Problem-Solving in Personnel Management”, written way back in 1978. Strangely enough, for a book that has been described as “seminal” it’s currently out of print, though you can get your hands on a second hand copy on Amazon at the moment.

In her book, Legge squares up to the fundamental questions of what should be the objectives of HR (although she uses the term “personnel”) management, and also how such objectives can best be achieved. She might have been writing over 35 years ago, but I suspect that most of us in the HR profession today frequently echo her questions of how our function can gain a higher priority in organisational decision making, and also how we can increase the power that our function exercises within our organisations. Bearing in mind that it has recently been claimed that the HR profession has failed to overcome many of the problems identified by Legge 35 years ago, it’s worth a second glance at what she wrote back in the days when flared trousers were in fashion.

Legge’s description of two types of role that can be undertaken by the HR professional seem to me to crystallize the options that we have for the way we operate in our organisations. Have a look at her two conflicting roles, and ask yourself which most accurately describes the way you see yourself as an HR professional:

Do you see yourself as a conformist innovator, and regard your purpose as being to gain the expertise that will allow you to demonstrate a closer relationship between your activities and the success of the organisation? If you operate in this role, you’re more likely to accept the prevailing culture and values of the organisation, but nevertheless you’ll attempt to demonstrate the value that you and the HR function can add within this framework. If you’re a conformist innovator, you’ll probably be into service level agreements, HR Information Systems, metrics and measurements in a big way. You probably know the precise Learning and Development spend per employee for the last 12 months, and also know the exact cost per hire (to the nearest penny!) and time to hire (down to the minute!)

Or do you see yourself as a deviant innovator, where you do more than just accept the organisation’s ends and adjust your means to achieve them? Do you actually regard your purpose as being to get your organisation to accept and implement a different set of criteria for the evaluation of success? You’ll probably recognise that you have a task on your hands, as persuading senior managers that factors other than financial success should be used to measure the performance of the organisation is, to say the least, a big ask! If you are a deviant innovator you will probably be more turned on by organisational development, and also see the importance of making sure that your organisation is responsive to the needs of the external society in which it is placed. Things like Employee Wellbeing and Corporate Social Responsibility are likely to be issues that float your boat.

Basically, my interpretation of Legge’s two alternative manifestations of HR boils down to this:

As an HR professional, do you march to the beat of the drum that is thumped by the CEO and the senior management team, or do you see yourself as the drummer in the band?

I guess I’m showing my age (as well as my musical preferences!) here, but fellow HR professional (deliberate pun alert) Who Are You: Keith Moon, or a backing vocalist?

Read about Graham and our other authors here

*****

Discuss HR is the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK, the 10,000 member strong LinkedIn group dedicated to the HR professionals in the UK.  Discuss HR is published twice weekly and looks to take an insightful, informative and sometimes irreverent view on the world of HR – all with the purpose of generating a discussion.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR, you can find more information here.  Our next guest writer week is the week commencing 29^th April.

Any source

Employer Brand & Gen Y

Welcome to Discuss HR, the HR blog written by Human Resources UK. 

We welcome another new writer that you’ll recognise from previous guest posts.  Paul Goring completes our Gloucestershire trio with a fantastic piece on employer branding. (Ed Scrivener)

Employer Brand & Gen Y

Regardless of the state of the labour market, we all know that attracting and keeping the top talent in any sector is still tough. The phrase Employer Brand has been around since it was first coined in I guess the 90’s and as Minchington (2005) said, it is all about ‘the image of your organisation as a great place to work,’ which is all fantastic as a concept until you start to look more closely at what that means and ask questions like; for who, how much will changing things cost and what is the bottom line business benefit?

So perhaps you know that your Employer Brand needs your attention and that the business needs to accept that people choose employers for a range of reasons...blank piece of paper time; What is it like to work here? The first and biggest question of the whole piece I think because you are now going to have to introduce the idea of generational preference because different people of different ages or generation types choose employers and more importantly stay with employers for very different reasons?

I will come clean; my focus professionally in this sphere was on Generation Y, working for a big pan-Global insurance business I was asked to help the business answer the huge question of ‘how do we attract and retain sufficient top level talent from the top schools globally’ this meant understanding, talking to, researching and reaching out to Generation Y and specifically looking at what they really want from an employer and what might encourage them to hang around for a few years.

The list of ‘must have’s’ for that top talent globally was indeed a revelation. Using a mixture of focused Exit Interviews, round table discussions and travelling to many careers events around Europe the list became very consistent in its content.

What did Gen Y want from an employer? Well salary was not at the top of the list; quality training, career mobility, flexible working, information and environment all featured in their top ten and we did something about them all because they were all things that could be focused on and worked into our offering and indeed most existed already but were not being communicated well enough or in the right way.

So you move heaven and earth to change the way that your future talent sees your business in terms of your Employer Brand but what do the Gen X and Baby Boomers that you employ already think about that? Is it possible for you to develop your Employer Brand and not impact the people who work for you and do a great job but who also want and need different things from you as their employer and who would define a ‘great place to work’ very differently from Gen Y.  What about your non-Gen Y candidates too? How can you possibly be all things to all men...

The crux of the problem I believe.  I think that www.employerbrandingtoday.com have some very interesting things to say on the issue and appealing to the right people in the right way without trying to appeal to everyone is one of their key messages. Your EVP (Employer Value Proposition) is a unique set of offerings, associations and values that should be cross generational and coalesce into your Employer Branding both looking outwards and inwards to be truly congurent and effective; there is no point saying something to candidates that you would not be prepared to say to your current staff.

The process of reviewing, understanding and honing your Employer Brand and then allowing it to evolve and be informed by what staff and candidates think is alot tougher than it appears because afterall how easy is it to create a ‘great place to work’ anyway?

Read about Paul and our other authors here

*****

Discuss HR is the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK, the 10,000 member strong LinkedIn group dedicated to the HR professionals in the UK.  Discuss HR is published twice weekly and looks to take an insightful, informative and sometimes irreverent view on the world of HR – all with the purpose of generating a discussion.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR, you can find more information here.  Our next guest writer week is the week commencing 29^th April.

Any source

Vince Cable's "new" proposals

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR, the HR blog written for and by members of Human Resources UK.

Our HRUKLI events kicked off this week with an incredibly talkative group in Bristol!  There was an awful lot of networking and fun had by all, so thank you to everyone for attending.  Later today we have the Wootton Bassett event, which promises to be even bigger and better!

So to the blog, this week we welcome our latest guest writer and solicitor Louise Taft.  Louise gives us her view on the recent changes to employment regulation. (Ed Scrivener)

Vince Cable’s “new” proposals to streamline employment law and boost business

The man in question

Employment law was all over the news again on Friday after a much hyped press release setting out proposals for changes to employment regulation. After waiting with bated breath well beyond the advertised time of 9.30am, employment lawyers found themselves looking at some very familiar proposals. Those proposals are:

• Greater use of settlement agreements, with proposals for an ACAS code of practice
• A reduction in the cap on unfair dismissal compensation
• Streamlining Employment Tribunals, making it easier for Judges to dismissal weak cases
• Consulting on changes to TUPE
• Recommending improved guidance for small businesses on the ACAS code of practice on discipline and grievances

My immediate reaction was that I had heard it all before.  Indeed, the proposals on settlement agreements and the unfair dismissal cap were made in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill back in May. News organisations were then more interested in the leaked Beecroft report advocating no fault dismissal, which BIS has now confirmed will not be pursued. Instead, it is suggested that the settlement agreement proposals will improve employer confidence and improved guidance on the ACAS code will reduce the fear of regulation.

It is my long held view that fear of employment regulation does far more damage to business confidence than the regulation itself. I am increasingly frustrated that BIS and employer organisations champion reform by claiming that employment law is a constraint on business. This only fuels the fear of regulation, dissuading small businesses from expanding by taking on new staff when those fears are rarely genuine.

 Whenever I have explained the rules on unfair dismissal to an employer, they are struck by how simple it sounds: act reasonably, give your employee the chance to improve their performance/behaviour (except where there is gross misconduct) and don’t take disciplinary action without first giving an employee a fair chance to state their case. More guidance on the ACAS code is a sensible suggestion and should, if drafted in plain English, help small businesses to understand what they can and cannot do. It is important that businesses understand that they can sack underperforming employees provided they give them opportunity to improve.

Friday’s announcement was followed by 2 separate consultations, one on “ending the employment relationship” on the use of settlement agreements and unfair dismissal compensation and one on the Employment Tribunal rules.

Settlement agreements are of course merely compromise agreements by another name. Whether or not the proposed standard form will reduce legal costs will depend entirely on the quality of that standard form. If it is badly drafted, legal advisors will suggest amendments, which may increase rather than reduce costs.

The proposed “protected conversations” have more holes than a string vest and could lead to years of satellite litigation. They will only be “protected” in unfair dismissal proceedings, not claims for discrimination or automatic unfair dismissal. Our advice will be to proceed, as now, on the basis that it is possible a settlement offer will be referred to in Tribunal proceedings so employers must be careful in what they say when making an offer.

There has been much debate over a cut in the maximum compensation available for unfair dismissal. In reality, this will take effect in only a minority of claims. In 2010/2011, the median award was only £4,591. The Impact Assessment accompanying the consultations states that 94% of awards between 2005/06 and 2010/11 were below £30000 and 98% were below £50000. Higher earners are likely to negotiate longer notice periods, allowing them to bring higher value breach of contract claims if their employment is terminated. Other than generating headlines, the impact of any change is likely to be minimal.

Employment lawyers were also aware of the fundamental review of Employment Tribunal rules finalised by Mr Justice Underhill back in June. This recommended several changes to streamline the process, including several designed to make it easier to strike out weak cases, hold shorter hearings and give greater powers to order costs. These proposed changes are sensible and will hopefully go some way to free up the overworked Tribunal system to give resources to realistic claims with a prospect of success.

We were also well aware of the call for evidence on the impact of TUPE, which closed as long ago as February. The announcement doesn’t set out any changes but promises a consultation later in the year. The major issue is of course that TUPE legislation is governed by European law, making changes difficult. I suspect the reason we haven’t seen anything thus far is that BIS are struggling to identify how changes can be made that don’t fall foul of European case law.

So in short, Friday’s press release will not herald an employment law revolution. If you want to have your say on the consulations, you can do so here. Otherwise, keep an eye on progress of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.

About the author:

Louise Taft qualified in 2002 and has spent the past 10 years dealing with Employment Tribunal claims on behalf of both Claimants and Respondents. She has a particular interest in claims involving Discrimination and Whistleblowing. She also has experience in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal. Louise has appeared as an advocate in the Employment Tribunal on many occasions and as such applies her knowledge of the practice of the Tribunals to ensure that cases are effectively prepared for hearing. She gives clients the best possible advice as to when it is appropriate to settle a case and at what level. Most importantly, her experience of Tribunals informs her advice to employers as to how to deal with employee issues so as to avoid claims.

Blog |LinkedIn|Twitter |Website

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be written by experienced HR professional Sheena McLullich.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR you can find out more here.

Any source

Measure for Measure . . . TUPE and redundancy

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR, the HR blog written by and for members of Human Resources UK.

Just briefly to a bit of group news.  This week I formally announced the additions of the Birmingham and Manchester events to our HR networking events taking place in September.  You can find more information about the events here

To the point at hand, today we welcome back our regular writer and employment law expert Annabel Kaye who continues with her TUPE series. (Ed Scrivener)

Measure for Measure . . . TUPE and redundancy

We must not make a scarecrow of the law,

Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,

And let it keep one shape, till custom make it

Their perch and not their terror.

(Wm Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II, Sc I)

Much Ado About TUPE was never published...

The TUPE regulations are too dynamic for the comfort of those advising their employer (or their clients), with caselaw often changing between taking on a service contract and losing it again.   This is very anxiety-provoking for most HR practitioners, since ‘getting it wrong’ can mean their employer is taking on liabilities they otherwise need not, or, worse still, on the losing end of several employment tribunal claims.

This is particularly so when a TUPE transfer involves potential headcount changes and redundancies.

The legislation on redundancy and TUPE intertwine and interleave, and it can be tricky working out who needs to be consulted about what, in what format, over what period of time, and by whom.   So let’s have a go.

Consultation	TUPE consultation	Redundancy consultation
Statutory obligation to inform or consult with appropriate representatives	Always, no threshold of employee numbers	20 plus redundancies at one establishment within 90 days
Appropriate representatives	Reps from recognised trade union; or employee reps appointed or elected by affected employees for another purpose; or specially elected/appointed employee reps	Reps from recognised trade union; or employee reps appointed or elected by affected employees for another purpose; or specially elected/appointed employee reps
Statutory Timescales	No defined statutory minimum period of consultation Information about transfer given to reps long enough before the transfer to enable consultation (with a view to seeking agreement) to take place on the ‘measures’ to be taken by either employer	Less than 20 redundancies  - no specified timescale 20+ redundancies at least 30 days before first dismissal takes effect 100 +plus redundancies; 90 days Consultation ‘in good time’
Description of employees covered by the consultation	Anyone who may be affected by the transfer (not just those transferring)	Anyone at risk, and those who  may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals
Duty to inform	Inform, in writing: fact of transfer, date, reasons, implications for affected employees, measures envisaged in relation to affected employees	Inform, in writing: reasons; numbers and descriptions of employees proposed to be redundant, and total number of employees of each description at the establishment; proposed method of selection, and proposed method and timing of dismissals; proposed redundancy payments; number of agency workers working for employer, where in the business, and doing what
Duty to consult	With a view to seeking agreement to intended measures, considering representations, and stating reasons if proposals rejected	with a view to reaching agreement, about ways of avoiding the dismissals, reducing the numbers, and mitigating the consequences
On whom duty is placed	Transferor to consult; transferee to provide ‘measures’ statement	Employer
Penalties	Up to 13 weeks’ pay (statutory maximum not applying)	Protective award up to 90 days’ pay

The Government made a call for evidence on ways to improve TUPE, which closed on 31 January 2012.  No draft legislation has been published.  

TUPE caselaw is developing all the time.  Where redundancies are to take place in a TUPE scenario, then both sets of regulations and caselaw have to be considered and applied.

The redundancy consultation process and timing requirements are currently the subject of consultation which ends on 19 September (http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/c/12-808-collective-redundancies-consultation.pdf).  It is proposed to shorten the consultation period for 100+ redundancy exercises.

Many of the toughest issues around TUPE, economic technical or organisational dismissals (ETOs) and collective redundancies (or finding alternatives to them) are most effectively resolved by having a good consultation process.  

Having clear organisational and commercial objectives does not mean that the way of achieving these is set in stone, and there is a real difference between the aftermath of a well constructed and well consulted process, and the fall-out from a  rushed compliance exercise. 

As long as the law applies to what employers can do to employees at work, there is always going to be an area of ‘grey’.  It is simply not possible to arrive at a system that is both predictable and clear and also flexible and fair (http://irenicon.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/red-tape-and-fairness/).

If we accept this as a fact and work within it, then it becomes obvious that the way to deal with the ‘grey’ areas is to have a conversation – in other words, to consult.   If you do this in a TUPE context you will quickly discover that some people:

• don’t want to TUPE through and would be happy to be made redundant (whether or not a genuine redundancy situation exists)
• are not willing or able to change location/work base if that is what is needed
• are not willing or able to learn new working methods and techniques
• and by way of comparison some people
• are keen to expand their skill base
• are keen to change location
• have unused skills in their current role that would be useful in a new structure
• will do just about anything to keep a particular job

I have often sat down with HR teams and Directors who have said “X will never do this, Y will never agree to that”.  Sometimes they are right, but equally they can be wrong.  Flexibility can be as much influenced by circumstances as by personality.  We don’t know what people are keen to do until we ask them, and lay out the options for them.  Good consultation can have useful individual results, as well as improving the atmosphere at a challenging time.

About the author

Annabel Kaye has been specialising in employment law since the seventies.  She founded Irenicon in 1980 and has spent the last thirty years helping HR, line managers and everyone else look at employment law in a way that gets some organisational gain. She likes to think about things from a different angle and making the complex simple – despite the government’s best efforts.   She has traded through three recessions and advised clients from multi-national corporations to the smallest organisation. The toughest thing has always been to balance the competing needs of staff and organisation and that never goes away whatever the legal details.

Blog | Email| LinkedIn| Twitter | Website 

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be written by Susan Popoola.

Any source

Policy and Procedure as Granny would understand it

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR, the HR blog written for and by members of Human Resources UK.

Today we welcome back our regular writer Jill hart-Sanderson.  Jill is looking at the wonderful world of policies and procedures.  Instead of the logistics and bureaucracy of the process, Jill looks into their real value and asks some interesting questions.  As always, we’d like to know your thoughts.  (Ed Scrivener)

Policy and Procedure as Granny would understand it

More P&P nonsense!

Effective policies and procedures are at the heart of HR, but how often do we take time out to look at them and how they are perceived by an organisation as a whole? I have worked with organisations where the number of employees has ranged from 2 to over 3000 in both the public and private sector, and there are always key factors in how policies and procedures are set up and maintained. It is easy (especially in larger organisations) to become bogged down in the complexities of policies and procedures that have evolved over time. They may seem laborious and unnecessary but they are usually there for a good reason.

Firstly, what do we mean by ‘policy’ and ‘procedure’ and what are the differences? A Policy leaves room for discretion and describes what is to be accomplished whereas Procedure is how this is done. Generally on organisation’s policies are formed at a high strategic level and procedures at a lower level once a policy has been defined. For example a policy for ensuring the safety of employees will use a collection of procedures to ensure this is achieved.

So why have them? If you went into the street and asked Joe Public why organisations have HR policies and procedures I’m sure the majority would say ‘to comply with employment law’. However the reason why the laws themselves exist is to ensure fairness, consistency, and safety within the workplace - which surely should be the aim of all organisations. The Laws exist as a procedure to ensure this happens.

Another sometimes forgotten element of ‘policy and procedure’ is the opportunity to embed the organisation’s values, goals and aims. Policies can be used to clearly communicate to employees and the wider community exactly what they believe in and value, and procedures can demonstrate how this is put into practice.

Most of us are familiar with the usual basic questions that are asked when policies and procedures are set up or reviewed:

• is it legal?
• is it fair to the organisation, individual and person(s) responsible for implementing it?
• are the aims and timescales realistic?
• is it consistent with other policies/procedures?
• is it consistent with contracts and terms of employment?
• are there any exceptions and do they need to be defined?
• is it in line with external and internal best practice?
• who needs to be consulted before implementing any change?
• when is it to come into effect?

..but do we always remember the less oblivious checks:

• is it actually policy or procedure?
• is it necessary?
• what will it achieve?
• is it in-line with the organisation’s values, mission and strategic goals?
• have acronyms and jargon been removed/explained?
• is it written as clearly and simply as possible (would my granny understand it?)
• how are changes to be communicated?
• how will it affect the psychological contract?

The last three points are essential considerations to achieve buy-in from the whole organisation and to maintain good employee relations.

I recently came across someone (let’s call him John) who told me that he and his co-workers had been banned from contacting the HR department. John works ‘on the front-line’ for a national company with over 500 employees and reports to a manger who is overseen by an area manager.  John had a disagreement over the number of overtime hours he had been paid for and spoke to his manager. He told John that the hours were correct and that he could not take the matter further. John was also told he was not allowed to contact the company’s HR department and threatened dismissal if they were called.

Celebrating a duvet day!

So how did this situation happen? Perhaps the company have a procedure that states that employees should use a specific reporting line for any disputes (i.e. they should be reported to the worker’s line manager and not HR). Obviously this would prevent the HR department from being inundated with all timesheet queries, but what happens if the manager disagrees or acts inappropriately? Are there any checks in place to ensure the manager is acting fairly, and where is the chance to appeal? The procedure should clearly define what should happen if the employee is still unhappy with their manager’s decision. Maybe it does, but if it has not been clearly communicated and understood by either the manager or John then the procedure might as well not exist in employee relations terms. The organisation may be covered legally if it went to a tribunal, but how is this affecting the workplace on a day-to-day basis?

Amazing things can be achieved with a motivated workforce. When there is a culture of threat combined with a ‘them-and-us’ attitude things start to go wrong. The next time you are looking at a policy or procedure think about how it could enhance working relationships and of course your Gran – what would she think of it?

About the author

Jill is passionate about using creativity to unlock people's potential, finding practical solutions that make a real difference to organisations.  Her extensive management experience in both the public and private sectors combined with HR consultancy has given her a real insight into how great HR can transform individuals and businesses.

Email | LinkedIn

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 12^th July and will be written by experienced HR professional Sheena McLullich. 

Any source

Are exit interviews really worth it?

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR, the HR blog written for and by members of Human Resources UK.

Following on from yesterday we all know each other a little bit better now!  Based upon the comments I’ve received so far it seems everyone had a very good time.  We have one more event this month in Newcastle on 31^st (see their specific subgroup for more details).

It sounds rather obvious, but one of the key traits to networking is listening.  This is also a key trait in today’s topic – exit interviews.  I am very pleased to welcome our latest guest writer, seasoned blogger and HR Consultant Sharon Clews.  In the article Sharon very eloquently argues with herself about the pros and cons of exit interviews.  We would really love to know your thoughts and which argument you agree with.  (Ed Scrivener)

Are exit interviews really worth it?

I have been called the Exit Interview Queen. I was a staunch advocate for the use of them at every organisation I worked in. I formulated all the questions, made sure my team knew they had to complete them and of course, was the first person to schedule one when anyone resigned. But I find myself wondering now, are they really worth it?

What happens to the information you glean from a potentially disgruntled employee? Alternatively, is there anything you could possibly gain from an employee who loves the company and doesn’t see the need for change? Will you take that information and pass it on to the departments who really need it? Are you going to confront the Manager of Marketing and tell her that all her staff hates her and that they see her as a hindrance to the business? (If you do, hopefully it’s in more professional terms!). Will she take the advice?

How much of what you learn is constructive? If you do have feedback to give, in the case of the Marketing Manager for example, are your team skilled and disciplined enough to make that feedback effective and to deliver that message with the care it needs. What does it mean for the culture of your organisation?

With stakeholder management foremost in your mind, how will you determine what is best for the business?

The argument for.

At the end of any period of time in a job, there is nothing more satisfying than being asked why you are leaving. Whether that reason is based on dissatisfaction or euphoria, sometimes it is just delicious to get that opinion off your chest.

To be listened to and heard may well seem an opportunity you can’t afford to miss. Of course if you have been working for an organisation that values your input, hopefully nothing you say will be news to them – they would have heard it all before in your performance review, monthly one-on-ones, in weekly team meetings and in your regular ideas sessions.

As an employee, always take the opportunity to have an exit interview. Deliver what you need to say with professionalism and grace, and always with the best interests of the business at heart – regardless of what has personally happened to you. You will always be remembered for your poise in a difficult situation and that augurs well when references are being handed out.

From the organisation’s perspective, one of the strongest arguments for conducting exit interviews concerns the retention of knowledge. Clearly it might be too late to ask the departing employee to handover all they know, on their last day. This is an opportunity if there are no processes in place, to (preferably) finalise their handover process or at least get as much information as you can out of the employees head before they leave. It’s a very dangerous situation indeed when someone working for the organisation decides to leave after 32 years and nobody knows how to do their job. In times of downturn and recession, this is a real concern for business.

A vast majority of employees, having made their decision to leave, may be more forthcoming with their opinions on what needs fixing. Although this information must be tempered, it could give specific insight into process improvement, management, culture and environment and even how external dealings are made with customers or suppliers.

If you aregoing to carry out an exit interview, perhaps do it as the employee resigns, not as they are walking out the door. Many of these interviews are the last thing an employee has to do before they walk away from your organisation. You may catch them in a better frame of mind as they resign. Attitudes towards work can change rapidly if having to work out notice is not their preferred choice.

The argument against.

Does your organisation have a performance management framework? Do supervisors and managers have conversations with their staff once (or hopefully more!) per year? If so, what other information do you think you will glean from an exit interview. People leave their jobs for a variety of reasons, on financial grounds, career advancement, relocation or disputes with managers or values within organisations. I am an outspoken extrovert and yet, the last exit interview I gave, the very last thing I wanted to do was tell the truth. Why? Because I knew that nothing I said would be heeded. No feedback I gave was any more relevant on the last day than it was on the first. Our values differed greatly.

Of course there are other kinds of feedback people can provide. A staff member leaving could share information on process improvement, networking opportunities, new ideas. I then ask myself, why was this person not listened to during the time they worked there?

If your managers and supervisors are true leaders, then they are meeting regularly with their people to engage them with the business strategy and find ways of working that will continually challenge the business. They are having discussions with their people about their goals, ambitions and commitment to the business. If this is happening and your performance management system works, then there is always ample opportunity for your team to contribute to ideas for the business, continuous improvement projects and even direct feedback on how they are being managed

If you do wish to continue with exit interviews then here are some basic guidelines that could help:

• Have someone other than a direct report, up or down, do the interviewing and not just the HR Manager. Some of the most honest and informative exit interviews I have seen have been done by trusted peers.
• Make sure the questions are relevant. Try and elicit the real response for why someone is leaving. Ask about the main reason and then ask if there are other reasons.
• Do something with the data. Whatever responses you get from the interview, it is the HR Department’s job to give the feedback, investigate any claims, encourage process improvement and even alter policy if and when appropriate.
• Do the interview face to face. Perhaps even off-site. Someone face to face is better than a phone call or online survey. Hire a consultant if necessary.
• Ensure the interview is relevant. Different techniques and styles need to be used depending upon the reason the person has for leaving.

Whatever you decide, ensure you do it thoroughly and respectfully for both the departing employee and the organisation. Get to the real issue of why you are doing the interview and follow up with any suggestions the employee makes. Either remedy issues immediately that can be fixed, or highlight others as projects to focus on. If you do the interviews, make sure that what you take away from them sticks!

Exit interviews are seen to be an evolved state of a strategically aligned HR Department. They leave the employee feeling cared about and listened to. These are powerful emotions when thinking about future talent attraction and retention. The information you get from an exit interview can be a real insight into what the business needs if you value your people and their opinions.

I am genuinely very torn on this subject. I welcome all comments to help me get off the fence on this one.

About the author

Sharon returned to London in 2008 and started her own consultancy business, taking a change in direction from Human Resources Management to Social Media business strategy consulting. Sharon now works with a select group of clients in both arenas, HR and Social Media; helping them in areas of management, change consulting and communications.

Sharon’s career experience includes a recent project within the Financial Services Industry and time within the higher education sector as the Manager of Operations and Human Resources for the University of Queensland Press and the University of South Australia. Her roles oversaw strategic change management and business transformation initiatives.  She also has broad experience elsewhere in public and private sectors working within the areas of sales and marketing, client relationship management and project management.

Sharon holds a Post Graduate HR Development degree from the Queensland University of Technology and is currently studying French, philosophy and guitar.

Blog |Email |LinkedIn |Twitter

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 17^th May and will be written by Leadership Coach Dorothy Nesbit.

Any source

Bank Holiday

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR, the HR blog written for and by members of Human Resources UK.

A final reminder, don’t forget next week’s networking events! http://bit.ly/HKjYZl

Discuss HR is nothing but apt and once again one of our writers pens a very appropriate post.  Our resident HR Director Sheena McLullich returns to discuss the forthcoming Bank Holiday and the relevance it has to HR professionals. (Ed Scrivener)

Bank Holiday

Yippee!  Another Bank Holiday coming up this weekend.  Another 4 day working week and there’s yet another long weekend to look forward to early next month!

This is the time of year that one CEO I worked with always referred to as the ‘silly season’.  A time of year when you can’t count on anyone being in the office when you need them because lots of people take additional time off around the plethora of Bank Holidays.  His view was that you were as well to write off the months of April and May because nothing ever got done.

Perhaps it’s thinking like this that’s behind proposals to move the current May Day holiday to later in the year, October being a popular suggestion.   Apparently it’s got something to do with Trafalgar Day on 21^st October – no, I must admit that I didn’t know that!   I also didn’t know that the system of bank holidays in the UK dates back to 1871 when the Bank Holidays Act was first introduced.  Prior to its introduction, the Bank of England recognised no fewer than 33 different saints’ days and religious holidays.  The Act was later repealed and replaced by the Banking & Financial Dealings Act, 1971 which currently regulates Bank Holidays in the UK although several other Bank Holidays have been added since the Act was first passed.

Generally the UK is considered to have one of the lowest allocations of Bank Holidays in Europe if not the world, with only Mexico having fewer (7 - just to prove I’ve done my research!).   Compare that to Cyprus (with 15), Spain (14) and even the USA with 10 and you can see why the argument may be for more Bank Holidays rather than moving the existing ones around. 

When I first moved down to England from Scotland some 10 years or more ago, I found the whole concept of Bank Holidays a strange and confusing one.  On the first Easter Sunday that I spent in England, I was astounded to discover that the shops were closed – Easter is not considered as a holiday north of the border.  Scotland enjoys a completely different system with Public Holidays determined by local authorities.  There are Bank Holidays - Christmas, New Year (two!!) and so on but there are also local holidays unique to each city, town and (sometimes) village.  Bank Holidays are not as widely recognised in Scotland as they are in England and Scottish banks actually follow the English holiday system.  This can mean that on a ‘bank holiday’ in Scotland, the banks are open for business – confusing to say the least! 

I can remember several occasions when I had a day off for a public holiday because I worked in a particular city but my kids, who attended school in a different town, didn’t.  It led to some scheduling and childcare nightmares!

However, it’s not all confusion and gloom – the UK offers a greater statutory holiday entitlement than many other countries.  Employees here, as you well know, are entitled to at least 28 days holiday per year whereas in Cyprus it’s 20, Spain 22 and in the USA there is no statutory entitlement to holidays at all. 

So, why did I spend a couple of hours researching this on the Internet? (thanks by the way, to the TUC, Mercer Consulting, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and Wikipedia!)  More importantly, why should we as HR professionals care about any of this?  Well, lots of other research has shown that even in these straitened economic times, employees value a healthy work/life balance.  Holidays are an essential component of this and I’m sure that many of us are really looking forward to our forthcoming shorter working week!

What do you think?  Should we have more or fewer Bank Holidays?  Does the benefit of having a happier workforce who enjoy more time off work outweigh the negative impact on productivity and attendance? 

About the author

Sheena began her career in Training & Development before moving to a generalist HR position in 1998.  Since then she has held senior HR roles for several SMEs in a wide range of industries. A Fellow of the CIPD and Member of the US SHRM, she has a keen interest in Employee Development, specifically in coaching and supporting managers to enable them to get the best from their people.  She was appointed as Director of People for SPA Future Thinking in September 2011.

Email | LinkedIn | Website

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 10^th May when we will welcome our latest guest writer Sharon Clews.

Any source