Eyres v Atkinsons Kitchens & Bedrooms Ltd
Michael Eyres was an employee of Atkinsons Kitchens and Bedrooms. Late one evening, he crashed his van while returning to Bradford on the M1, having worked a 19-hour day and driven hundreds of miles. Eyres, who was not wearing a seatbelt, suffered a serious spinal injury in the accident, which left him tetraplegic.
Prior to the accident, while his managing director Craig Atkinson was asleep as a passenger, Eyres read and sent a number of text messages on his mobile phone while driving at high speed. The accident was caused by Eyres having to brake suddenly and losing control of the vehicle.
Eyres had claimed that his employer was liable in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty because it had caused or permitted him to drive when he was too tired having worked excessively long hours without a proper break.
Decision
The High Court found that it was Eyres' not paying attention through using his mobile phone that caused the accident, rather than his tiredness, and entered judgment in the defendant's favour. Eyres appealed.
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling, concluding that on a balance of probabilities the accident was caused by Eyres falling asleep, rather than using his mobile phone.
The Court of Appeal found that his employer, which encouraged a long-hours culture, had been negligent by requiring him to drive in such circumstances and doing nothing to guard against the risk of injury.
It was also directed that Eyres' damages should be reduced by 33% due to his contributory negligence in not wearing a seat belt and in driving while tired and liable to fall asleep.
Key implications
All employers should be alert to health and safety and working time requirements. However, employers of staff who engage in higher-risk activities (such as long-distance driving, working at height, or operating heavy or dangerous machinery) must take care to ensure they comply at all times with their duty of care to their employees. Casually asking an employee who has worked long hours, and is clearly suffering from fatigue, if they are "OK to carry on" with the relevant activity will not usually be sufficient.
The Eyres case is also a reminder that while risks taken by the employee may reduce damages through contributory negligence, they may not be enough to ensure that the employer escapes liability. Having exemptions or obtaining employee opt-outs from working time legislation will not prevent liability for health and safety or negligence claims.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Bill will bring such risks into even sharper focus.
Employers should ensure their health and safety policies adequately address risks that are relevant to their workforce, and that they:
Comply with all relevant health and safety and working time legislation for the industry in question.
Make it clear that a long working hours culture that puts employees' health and safety at risk is positively discouraged.
Ensure that working schedules and, where relevant, journey times are realistic and safe, with provision for rest breaks.
Put checks in place to ensure these schedules are adhered to.
Provide practical measures to ensure that employee health and safety is not placed at risk - for example, ensuring an overnight stay rather than requiring completion of a long road journey at the end of a working day.
By Adam Fuge, partner, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin
HR : http://www.personneltoday.com
Saturday, July 28, 2007
What is the 'same job' following maternity leave?
Blundell v St Andrews Catholic Primary School
When is a job not the same job? That was the question considered in Blundell v St Andrews Catholic Primary School, where for the first time the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the criteria to be used when assessing what exactly amounts to the 'same job' under the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999.
In the regulations, a woman returning from ordinary maternity leave has the right to "return to the same job, in which she was employed before her absence".
Background
Mrs Blundell was a primary school teacher. The practice in her school was for teachers to teach a particular class every two years and then rotate - to give them a breadth of experience.
At the time of commencing maternity leave in January 2004, she was in her second year of teaching the class 'reception yellow'. On her return to work, at the start of the following academic year, she was offered the choice of a floating role or teaching year two. She chose the latter. However, she claimed that this was a more stressful role, and not the same job that she had left prior to her maternity leave.
Decision
The EAT disagreed, and found her role to be that of a primary school teacher, and not specifically defined as a teacher of the reception yellow class.
An employer has to consider three things when deciding upon the 'same job': the 'nature' of the job, as provided by the contract of employment the 'capacity' in which the employee is employed, which is a factual label to describe the employee's function more than merely their status and the 'place' at which the employee works.
The issues of capacity and place are not dictated solely by the contract, but are to be decided by a tribunal on the particular facts. For example, where a mobility clause allowing for an alternative location exists in the contract of employment, this would not necessarily entitle an employer to move an employee on her return from maternity leave.
The EAT ruled that where there is variation to the role in practice, the employer is not obliged to "freeze time at the precise moment that maternity leave is taken, but may have regard to the normal range within which variation has previously occurred". It concluded that teaching year two was not outside the normal range of variability that she could reasonably have expected, and was therefore the 'same job'.
As her role was regularly rotated, the EAT found that the nature of her job was to teach at a primary school, her capacity was as a class teacher rather than a reception yellow teacher, and her place of work was at the school.
Key implications
Although of little comfort to Blundell, the EAT was keen to stress the purpose of the regulations, which is to ensure that women who return from maternity leave experience as little disruption as reasonably possible at an already stressful time for them.
While the EAT was sympathetic to the intentions of the regulations, the positive message for employers is that in practice, as in this case, it is likely that a generic job description and less rigid working practices will go a long way in affording them the flexibility that they may require.
The guidelines set out by the EAT are useful. However, nothing can be taken for granted and, where there is uncertainty, each case will still rest on its own facts.
Stefan Green is a lawyer in the employment and benefits team at Allen & Overy
HR LINK : http://www.personneltoday.com/
When is a job not the same job? That was the question considered in Blundell v St Andrews Catholic Primary School, where for the first time the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the criteria to be used when assessing what exactly amounts to the 'same job' under the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999.
In the regulations, a woman returning from ordinary maternity leave has the right to "return to the same job, in which she was employed before her absence".
Background
Mrs Blundell was a primary school teacher. The practice in her school was for teachers to teach a particular class every two years and then rotate - to give them a breadth of experience.
At the time of commencing maternity leave in January 2004, she was in her second year of teaching the class 'reception yellow'. On her return to work, at the start of the following academic year, she was offered the choice of a floating role or teaching year two. She chose the latter. However, she claimed that this was a more stressful role, and not the same job that she had left prior to her maternity leave.
Decision
The EAT disagreed, and found her role to be that of a primary school teacher, and not specifically defined as a teacher of the reception yellow class.
An employer has to consider three things when deciding upon the 'same job': the 'nature' of the job, as provided by the contract of employment the 'capacity' in which the employee is employed, which is a factual label to describe the employee's function more than merely their status and the 'place' at which the employee works.
The issues of capacity and place are not dictated solely by the contract, but are to be decided by a tribunal on the particular facts. For example, where a mobility clause allowing for an alternative location exists in the contract of employment, this would not necessarily entitle an employer to move an employee on her return from maternity leave.
The EAT ruled that where there is variation to the role in practice, the employer is not obliged to "freeze time at the precise moment that maternity leave is taken, but may have regard to the normal range within which variation has previously occurred". It concluded that teaching year two was not outside the normal range of variability that she could reasonably have expected, and was therefore the 'same job'.
As her role was regularly rotated, the EAT found that the nature of her job was to teach at a primary school, her capacity was as a class teacher rather than a reception yellow teacher, and her place of work was at the school.
Key implications
Although of little comfort to Blundell, the EAT was keen to stress the purpose of the regulations, which is to ensure that women who return from maternity leave experience as little disruption as reasonably possible at an already stressful time for them.
While the EAT was sympathetic to the intentions of the regulations, the positive message for employers is that in practice, as in this case, it is likely that a generic job description and less rigid working practices will go a long way in affording them the flexibility that they may require.
The guidelines set out by the EAT are useful. However, nothing can be taken for granted and, where there is uncertainty, each case will still rest on its own facts.
Stefan Green is a lawyer in the employment and benefits team at Allen & Overy
HR LINK : http://www.personneltoday.com/
Case of the week: When can the 'without prejudice' rule be set aside?
In Brunel University & Schwartz v Webster & Vaseghi, the Court of Appeal analysed the 'without prejudice' rule and circumstances in which the rule can be set aside.
The without prejudice privilege attaches to evidence of settlement negotiations aimed at resolving disputes, and prevents such evidence being referred to in proceedings. However, privilege will fall away where both parties waive it, and can also be withdrawn where it would otherwise conceal unlawful behaviour.
Facts
Vaseghi and Webster brought claims of race discrimination against Brunel University. The without prejudice discussions to settle the disputes were unsuccessful and tribunal hearings went ahead. Subsequently, in a university newsletter, the vice-chancellor complained about the cost of defending the claims, and alluded to the fact that the claims had been accompanied by "unwarranted demands for money". Vaseghi and Webster brought victimisation grievances and tribunal claims on the basis of these comments. An independent panel set up by the university heard the grievances, including evidence about the without prejudice discussions.
The tribunal pleadings and bundle also contained various references to the settlement discussions. However, when Vaseghi and Webster disclosed a statement by a solicitor about these discussions, the university's lawyers objected on the basis that the evidence was without prejudice.
Decision
The Court of Appeal said that privilege had been waived on the basis that both parties:
Gave or called evidence of the without prejudice discussions at the independent panel review (an unusual forum as it was adversarial in nature and a formal trial)
Referred to the without prejudice discussions in their respective pleadings.
However, the court said that, in normal cases where without prejudice discussions are mentioned at internal grievance meetings, privilege would not be waived.
While the court declined to comment on whether there was an exception to the without prejudice rule in cases of discrimination to prevent the rule from concealing the "evil" of discrimination, it did say that it could understand that it may be difficult to prove discrimination if the general without prejudice rule applies fully in every case.
Key implications
Be aware that without prejudice protection will not apply in all cases and is not absolute. To protect the without prejudice status of communications:
Consider whether there is a dispute before speaking on a without prejudice basis. The rule only applies where there is a dispute between the parties and the discussions are a genuine attempt to end the dispute.
Label settlement documents 'without prejudice', although remember that a document will not become privileged merely because of its label.
Only refer to without prejudice communications during internal grievance proceedings where absolutely necessary, and make it clear that privilege is not being waived. Where independent panels are set up to determine grievances, beware that adducing evidence of without prejudice communications is likely to waive privilege.
Do not refer to without prejudice documents or discussions in pleadings, witness statements or any other tribunal documents.
The privilege may not cover communications that disclose evidence of discrimination. There remains a risk that the without prejudice rule will be set aside to allow a claimant to prove discrimination.
By Judith Harris, professional support lawyer, Addleshaw Goddard
HR LINK : http://www.personneltoday.com/
The without prejudice privilege attaches to evidence of settlement negotiations aimed at resolving disputes, and prevents such evidence being referred to in proceedings. However, privilege will fall away where both parties waive it, and can also be withdrawn where it would otherwise conceal unlawful behaviour.
Facts
Vaseghi and Webster brought claims of race discrimination against Brunel University. The without prejudice discussions to settle the disputes were unsuccessful and tribunal hearings went ahead. Subsequently, in a university newsletter, the vice-chancellor complained about the cost of defending the claims, and alluded to the fact that the claims had been accompanied by "unwarranted demands for money". Vaseghi and Webster brought victimisation grievances and tribunal claims on the basis of these comments. An independent panel set up by the university heard the grievances, including evidence about the without prejudice discussions.
The tribunal pleadings and bundle also contained various references to the settlement discussions. However, when Vaseghi and Webster disclosed a statement by a solicitor about these discussions, the university's lawyers objected on the basis that the evidence was without prejudice.
Decision
The Court of Appeal said that privilege had been waived on the basis that both parties:
Gave or called evidence of the without prejudice discussions at the independent panel review (an unusual forum as it was adversarial in nature and a formal trial)
Referred to the without prejudice discussions in their respective pleadings.
However, the court said that, in normal cases where without prejudice discussions are mentioned at internal grievance meetings, privilege would not be waived.
While the court declined to comment on whether there was an exception to the without prejudice rule in cases of discrimination to prevent the rule from concealing the "evil" of discrimination, it did say that it could understand that it may be difficult to prove discrimination if the general without prejudice rule applies fully in every case.
Key implications
Be aware that without prejudice protection will not apply in all cases and is not absolute. To protect the without prejudice status of communications:
Consider whether there is a dispute before speaking on a without prejudice basis. The rule only applies where there is a dispute between the parties and the discussions are a genuine attempt to end the dispute.
Label settlement documents 'without prejudice', although remember that a document will not become privileged merely because of its label.
Only refer to without prejudice communications during internal grievance proceedings where absolutely necessary, and make it clear that privilege is not being waived. Where independent panels are set up to determine grievances, beware that adducing evidence of without prejudice communications is likely to waive privilege.
Do not refer to without prejudice documents or discussions in pleadings, witness statements or any other tribunal documents.
The privilege may not cover communications that disclose evidence of discrimination. There remains a risk that the without prejudice rule will be set aside to allow a claimant to prove discrimination.
By Judith Harris, professional support lawyer, Addleshaw Goddard
HR LINK : http://www.personneltoday.com/
Case of the week: 'Without prejudice' discussions
Framlington Group Ltd and Axa Framlington Group Ltd v Barnetson (Court of Appeal)
Hot on the heels of Brunel University & Schwartz v Webster & Vaseghi (see case of the week, Personnel Today, 12 June), which dealt with the circumstances in which the 'without prejudice' rule can be set aside, comes a second Court of Appeal case - Framlington Group Ltd and Axa Framlington Group Ltd v Barnetson.
Written or oral communications made in a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute will generally be protected by the without prejudice rule. This means that those communications cannot be used as evidence in court proceedings in relation to that dispute.
It is well established that where settlement negotiations occur in the context of litigation, or threatened litigation, those negotiations will be covered by the without prejudice rule. However, in the 2004 case of BNP Paribas v Ms A Mezzotero the EAT restricted the operation of the rule and said that it would only apply where litigation was likely and not before that point.
Framlington follows on from Mezzotero, and considers, for the first time, whether discussions that took place months before litigation started, or was even likely, will be covered by the rule.
Facts
In early 2005, Mr Barnetson started employment as chief operating officer at Framlington Group Ltd. He was told that his orally agreed terms and conditions would be confirmed in writing at a later date. However, when Barnetson pursued this written confirmation, a difference of opinion arose as to the terms that had been agreed. Discussions around his terms took place until the end of October 2005, at which point Framlington told Barnetson it intended to dismiss him at the end of the year.
Further negotiations ensued, during which a compromise agreement was produced and Barnetson set out the terms on which he would be prepared to settle. These discussions broke down and on 20 December 2005, Barnetson was given notice that his employment would terminate.
Barnetson brought proceedings for damages for wrongful dismissal in April 2006. Framlington alleged that certain parts of Barnetson's witness statement in support of his claim should not be allowed because they related to without prejudice discussions that had taken place between the end of October and 20 December 2005. The High Court judge rejected this argument. Framlington appealed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal held that, once Framlington had told Barnetson it intended to dismiss him, the discussions that followed were without prejudice and could not, therefore, be used as evidence in the court proceedings.
There was a public policy consideration underlying the without prejudice rule namely, to encourage people to settle their disputes without resorting to litigation. In light of this aim, it was not appropriate to set a time limit prior to litigation before which any discussions would not be protected. Rather, courts should determine the point at which, during the course of negotiations, the parties contemplated, or might reasonably have contemplated, litigation if they could not reach agreement.
Key implications
This case clarifies the circumstances in which discussions with staff will be covered by the without prejudice rule:
There is no need for litigation to be threatened or underway for negotiations to be protected. If it is clear that the parties understood that litigation might result if the negotiations failed, then such discussions are likely to be protected.
The discussions in this case were only protected from the point at which Barnetson was told of his employer's intention to dismiss him. Discussions during internal grievances are unlikely to be protected.
By Laura Green, assistant solicitor, Lovells' Employment Group
HR Link : http://www.personneltoday.com
Hot on the heels of Brunel University & Schwartz v Webster & Vaseghi (see case of the week, Personnel Today, 12 June), which dealt with the circumstances in which the 'without prejudice' rule can be set aside, comes a second Court of Appeal case - Framlington Group Ltd and Axa Framlington Group Ltd v Barnetson.
Written or oral communications made in a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute will generally be protected by the without prejudice rule. This means that those communications cannot be used as evidence in court proceedings in relation to that dispute.
It is well established that where settlement negotiations occur in the context of litigation, or threatened litigation, those negotiations will be covered by the without prejudice rule. However, in the 2004 case of BNP Paribas v Ms A Mezzotero the EAT restricted the operation of the rule and said that it would only apply where litigation was likely and not before that point.
Framlington follows on from Mezzotero, and considers, for the first time, whether discussions that took place months before litigation started, or was even likely, will be covered by the rule.
Facts
In early 2005, Mr Barnetson started employment as chief operating officer at Framlington Group Ltd. He was told that his orally agreed terms and conditions would be confirmed in writing at a later date. However, when Barnetson pursued this written confirmation, a difference of opinion arose as to the terms that had been agreed. Discussions around his terms took place until the end of October 2005, at which point Framlington told Barnetson it intended to dismiss him at the end of the year.
Further negotiations ensued, during which a compromise agreement was produced and Barnetson set out the terms on which he would be prepared to settle. These discussions broke down and on 20 December 2005, Barnetson was given notice that his employment would terminate.
Barnetson brought proceedings for damages for wrongful dismissal in April 2006. Framlington alleged that certain parts of Barnetson's witness statement in support of his claim should not be allowed because they related to without prejudice discussions that had taken place between the end of October and 20 December 2005. The High Court judge rejected this argument. Framlington appealed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal held that, once Framlington had told Barnetson it intended to dismiss him, the discussions that followed were without prejudice and could not, therefore, be used as evidence in the court proceedings.
There was a public policy consideration underlying the without prejudice rule namely, to encourage people to settle their disputes without resorting to litigation. In light of this aim, it was not appropriate to set a time limit prior to litigation before which any discussions would not be protected. Rather, courts should determine the point at which, during the course of negotiations, the parties contemplated, or might reasonably have contemplated, litigation if they could not reach agreement.
Key implications
This case clarifies the circumstances in which discussions with staff will be covered by the without prejudice rule:
There is no need for litigation to be threatened or underway for negotiations to be protected. If it is clear that the parties understood that litigation might result if the negotiations failed, then such discussions are likely to be protected.
The discussions in this case were only protected from the point at which Barnetson was told of his employer's intention to dismiss him. Discussions during internal grievances are unlikely to be protected.
By Laura Green, assistant solicitor, Lovells' Employment Group
HR Link : http://www.personneltoday.com
Case of the week: Banking on the bonus doesn't pay
Ridgway v JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, High Court
What is the extent of an employer's discretion when making bonus decisions? We already know that discretion is not completely unfettered, and that employers must not act in a way that is irrational or perverse when making bonus decisions. But does that authorise an employer to award no bonus whatsoever?
Background
In Ridgway v JP Morgan, the High Court decided that the bank was entitled to award a 'nil' bonus to a trader who had spent most of the bonus year on sabbatical.
Mr Ridgway, who headed up the bank's options desk, took an unpaid sabbatical starting in April 2003. One of the terms of the sabbatical agreement was that Ridgway would continue to be eligible for a discretionary bonus for the year ending December 2003. At the end of the bonus year, the bank awarded Ridgway a nil bonus.
On his return from sabbatical, Ridgway's previous job was unavailable, and he and the bank failed to agree on an alternative role for him. Ridgway resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. He claimed compensation for his bonus on the basis that the bonus decision was irrational and perverse, as well as compensation for stock awards that he lost as a result of resigning.
Decision
The High Court dismissed all of Ridgway's claims. In relation to the bonus claim, it followed the guidelines for the award of discretionary bonuses set out in the recent Court of Appeal decision of Commerzbank v Keen. In Commerzbank, the Court of Appeal said the hurdle is set very high for an employee to show that a bonus decision is irrational or perverse. However, the Court of Appeal also said an employer must identify the reason for a bonus award and the decision maker.
The High Court said the bank had been entitled to award Ridgway a nil bonus after taking into account the fact that he had been on sabbatical for most of the bonus year. The bank had also taken into account the fact that Ridgway had been making a loss when he went on sabbatical, that his 'add-on' contribution was very limited, and that there were no other factors to justify awarding a bonus.
The court endorsed Commerzbank and said the task of proving irrationality or perversity in the exercise of the bank's discretion to award a bonus is a "daunting one".
Key implications
Following the Commerzbank and JP Morgan decisions, courts will be reluctant to intervene in bonus decisions except in exceptional cases. However, bonus decisions are subject to challenge where the decision appears irrational and/or where the decision-making process is not transparent. Employers should be mindful of the following when making discretionary bonus decisions:
Properly and fully consider whether to award a discretionary bonus and, if so, the amount of the award.
Ensure the decision-making process is transparent and provide reasons why the bonus was assessed at the level it was so that the employee has an understanding as to how the figure was reached.
Tell the employee who made the bonus decision.
Review bonus wording to ensure it provides the level of discretion required (subject, of course, to the legal limitations set out above).
By Judith Harris, professional support lawyer, Addleshaw Goddard
Employers' Law
Each month, Employers' Law magazine outlines the latest legal rulings and what these mean for you. Click here to subscribe, or call 01444 445566.
Article by : http://www.personneltoday.com
What is the extent of an employer's discretion when making bonus decisions? We already know that discretion is not completely unfettered, and that employers must not act in a way that is irrational or perverse when making bonus decisions. But does that authorise an employer to award no bonus whatsoever?
Background
In Ridgway v JP Morgan, the High Court decided that the bank was entitled to award a 'nil' bonus to a trader who had spent most of the bonus year on sabbatical.
Mr Ridgway, who headed up the bank's options desk, took an unpaid sabbatical starting in April 2003. One of the terms of the sabbatical agreement was that Ridgway would continue to be eligible for a discretionary bonus for the year ending December 2003. At the end of the bonus year, the bank awarded Ridgway a nil bonus.
On his return from sabbatical, Ridgway's previous job was unavailable, and he and the bank failed to agree on an alternative role for him. Ridgway resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. He claimed compensation for his bonus on the basis that the bonus decision was irrational and perverse, as well as compensation for stock awards that he lost as a result of resigning.
Decision
The High Court dismissed all of Ridgway's claims. In relation to the bonus claim, it followed the guidelines for the award of discretionary bonuses set out in the recent Court of Appeal decision of Commerzbank v Keen. In Commerzbank, the Court of Appeal said the hurdle is set very high for an employee to show that a bonus decision is irrational or perverse. However, the Court of Appeal also said an employer must identify the reason for a bonus award and the decision maker.
The High Court said the bank had been entitled to award Ridgway a nil bonus after taking into account the fact that he had been on sabbatical for most of the bonus year. The bank had also taken into account the fact that Ridgway had been making a loss when he went on sabbatical, that his 'add-on' contribution was very limited, and that there were no other factors to justify awarding a bonus.
The court endorsed Commerzbank and said the task of proving irrationality or perversity in the exercise of the bank's discretion to award a bonus is a "daunting one".
Key implications
Following the Commerzbank and JP Morgan decisions, courts will be reluctant to intervene in bonus decisions except in exceptional cases. However, bonus decisions are subject to challenge where the decision appears irrational and/or where the decision-making process is not transparent. Employers should be mindful of the following when making discretionary bonus decisions:
Properly and fully consider whether to award a discretionary bonus and, if so, the amount of the award.
Ensure the decision-making process is transparent and provide reasons why the bonus was assessed at the level it was so that the employee has an understanding as to how the figure was reached.
Tell the employee who made the bonus decision.
Review bonus wording to ensure it provides the level of discretion required (subject, of course, to the legal limitations set out above).
By Judith Harris, professional support lawyer, Addleshaw Goddard
Employers' Law
Each month, Employers' Law magazine outlines the latest legal rulings and what these mean for you. Click here to subscribe, or call 01444 445566.
Article by : http://www.personneltoday.com
Ownership of contacts lists after employment has ended
PennWell Publishing (UK) Limited v Isles
Who owns a contacts list maintained by an employee in Outlook on the employer's computer system? In PennWell Publishing (UK) Limited v Isles, the High Court decided that the list belonged to the employer, despite the fact that it contained personal contacts and contacts that the employee had made before his employment had started.
Background
Mr Isles, a journalist, was employed as a publisher and conference chairman for PennWell. During his employment, he created and maintained a contacts list on PennWell's Outlook system, which included personal contacts, journalistic contacts and contacts that he had made before his employment started, as well as business contacts that he developed in his role with PennWell.
After Isles left PennWell to set up a competing business, it discovered that he had downloaded the entire Outlook contacts list from his work laptop.
Isles's contract stated that all documents used during employment belonged to the company and had to be returned before he left.
PennWell applied for an injunction for the return of the contacts list. Isles argued that most of the contacts on the list were personal to him.
Decision
The High Court had to decide whether the contacts list belonged exclusively to either PennWell or Isles or whether it was jointly owned by both.
The High Court said that where an address list is contained in Outlook or a similar software that is part of the employer's e-mail system and backed-up by the employer, the database or list belongs to the employer and may not be copied or removed in its entirety by employees for use outside or after employment. The High Court said that it would be "highly desirable" for employers to publish e-mail policies to communicate this to employees. While PennWell had an appropriate e-mail policy, the policy had not been effectively communicated to Isles and, therefore, PennWell was not entitled to rely on it.
Had Isles maintained his list of contacts as a separate, private address book, he would most likely have been entitled to that list. The court distinguished between contacts developed for the purposes of employment, where removal of contact information would be detrimental to the employer, and other contacts that an employee might keep for career purposes.
The court concluded that the list belonged to PennWell, but that Isles could copy from it his journalistic contacts and those made before his employment started.
Key implications
The confusion over ownership of the contacts lists that led to this case coming to court highlights the need for clear policies on ownership of contacts information. Employers should as a minimum:
Review e-mail policies to ensure they clearly identify what information is considered to belong to the employer, and confirm that it may not be removed or copied.
Communicate e-mail policies to all existing staff and bring these to the attention of new employees.
Ensure that confidentiality and return of property provisions in contracts cover contacts information and state what information will be protected/must be returned after employment.
Consider giving employees the option of a personal contacts folder to maintain contacts that are personal and/or those that pre-date employment.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer, Addleshaw Goddard
HR : http://www.personneltoday.com
Who owns a contacts list maintained by an employee in Outlook on the employer's computer system? In PennWell Publishing (UK) Limited v Isles, the High Court decided that the list belonged to the employer, despite the fact that it contained personal contacts and contacts that the employee had made before his employment had started.
Background
Mr Isles, a journalist, was employed as a publisher and conference chairman for PennWell. During his employment, he created and maintained a contacts list on PennWell's Outlook system, which included personal contacts, journalistic contacts and contacts that he had made before his employment started, as well as business contacts that he developed in his role with PennWell.
After Isles left PennWell to set up a competing business, it discovered that he had downloaded the entire Outlook contacts list from his work laptop.
Isles's contract stated that all documents used during employment belonged to the company and had to be returned before he left.
PennWell applied for an injunction for the return of the contacts list. Isles argued that most of the contacts on the list were personal to him.
Decision
The High Court had to decide whether the contacts list belonged exclusively to either PennWell or Isles or whether it was jointly owned by both.
The High Court said that where an address list is contained in Outlook or a similar software that is part of the employer's e-mail system and backed-up by the employer, the database or list belongs to the employer and may not be copied or removed in its entirety by employees for use outside or after employment. The High Court said that it would be "highly desirable" for employers to publish e-mail policies to communicate this to employees. While PennWell had an appropriate e-mail policy, the policy had not been effectively communicated to Isles and, therefore, PennWell was not entitled to rely on it.
Had Isles maintained his list of contacts as a separate, private address book, he would most likely have been entitled to that list. The court distinguished between contacts developed for the purposes of employment, where removal of contact information would be detrimental to the employer, and other contacts that an employee might keep for career purposes.
The court concluded that the list belonged to PennWell, but that Isles could copy from it his journalistic contacts and those made before his employment started.
Key implications
The confusion over ownership of the contacts lists that led to this case coming to court highlights the need for clear policies on ownership of contacts information. Employers should as a minimum:
Review e-mail policies to ensure they clearly identify what information is considered to belong to the employer, and confirm that it may not be removed or copied.
Communicate e-mail policies to all existing staff and bring these to the attention of new employees.
Ensure that confidentiality and return of property provisions in contracts cover contacts information and state what information will be protected/must be returned after employment.
Consider giving employees the option of a personal contacts folder to maintain contacts that are personal and/or those that pre-date employment.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer, Addleshaw Goddard
HR : http://www.personneltoday.com
Thursday, July 26, 2007
10 Tips For Planning A Corporate Incentive Travel Program
Corporate incentive travel is a great way to motivate and reward your valuable employees. Incentive travel can be group or individual, and the destination can be local or international. But every successful incentive travel program begins with careful planning.
The following are tips to help you plan a corporate travel program that fits your company’s culture, size and available budget:
Determine your corporate incentive program goals. In specific terms, establish what the incentive program should accomplish. This could be an increase in sales, increase in production output or profits, or a reduction in defective products, sales returns or lost contracts. Be sure to assign a value to the improvement or reduction - a percentage, absolute number of units or contracts, or a dollar figure.
Select the target group for the program. This could be management, employees, salespeople, or even customers.
Discover what the target’s values, interests and preferences through paper surveys or interviews. Then browse our corporate incentives guide to match up preferences with available packages in your budget range.
Considering past performance and employee behavior, establish reasonable tasks for your target group.
Make sure you have a performance tracking system in place with a clear way to measure incentive program results.
Brainstorm what obstacles may exist to the success of the incentive program. This could be current employee morale, organizational structure or market conditions.
Determine whether the program will be managed internally or outsourced to an agency.
Understand applicable tax implications. Travel can be taxable to recipients under certain conditions, and special tax forms may be required.
When selecting a corporate incentive travel company, make sure it agrees to fulfill what is promised for your budgeted cost, and that you understand its cancellation policies.
At the end of your program, survey winners and non-winners to determine whether the program was successful in meeting the objective.
Corporate Travel on a Smaller Budget
Even if you can’t afford to whisk your top performers away to Europe on a private jet, you can still reward your employees with incentive travel that they can enjoy.
If you can afford to send your team away on a teambuilding retreat, it doesn’t have to be far away. Campsites and resorts, even a day on a chartered boat can create a memorable experience. For individuals, it’s a better idea to send your recipient somewhere exotic enough to be memorable. If possible, allowing a spouse or children to accompany your employee is also a good idea.
An employee incentive getaway generally lasts from three nights to a full week, but weekend getaways can also work for smaller budgets. Accommodation could be in a bed and breakfast. Check travel and hotel websites often to catch their “travel best bets.”
Conclusion
For any corporate incentive travel program to accomplish its goal, you must determine how much you can spend, what options are available and what people want. And you must anticipate potential problems both within and without your organization. A clear system for measuring results will help you with future planning. Even on a smaller budget, corporate incentive travel can benefit your organization.
Linda Bustos is the Director of Marketing for Image X Media, a full service web design firm in Vancouver.
Back to HR Article Directory
The following are tips to help you plan a corporate travel program that fits your company’s culture, size and available budget:
Determine your corporate incentive program goals. In specific terms, establish what the incentive program should accomplish. This could be an increase in sales, increase in production output or profits, or a reduction in defective products, sales returns or lost contracts. Be sure to assign a value to the improvement or reduction - a percentage, absolute number of units or contracts, or a dollar figure.
Select the target group for the program. This could be management, employees, salespeople, or even customers.
Discover what the target’s values, interests and preferences through paper surveys or interviews. Then browse our corporate incentives guide to match up preferences with available packages in your budget range.
Considering past performance and employee behavior, establish reasonable tasks for your target group.
Make sure you have a performance tracking system in place with a clear way to measure incentive program results.
Brainstorm what obstacles may exist to the success of the incentive program. This could be current employee morale, organizational structure or market conditions.
Determine whether the program will be managed internally or outsourced to an agency.
Understand applicable tax implications. Travel can be taxable to recipients under certain conditions, and special tax forms may be required.
When selecting a corporate incentive travel company, make sure it agrees to fulfill what is promised for your budgeted cost, and that you understand its cancellation policies.
At the end of your program, survey winners and non-winners to determine whether the program was successful in meeting the objective.
Corporate Travel on a Smaller Budget
Even if you can’t afford to whisk your top performers away to Europe on a private jet, you can still reward your employees with incentive travel that they can enjoy.
If you can afford to send your team away on a teambuilding retreat, it doesn’t have to be far away. Campsites and resorts, even a day on a chartered boat can create a memorable experience. For individuals, it’s a better idea to send your recipient somewhere exotic enough to be memorable. If possible, allowing a spouse or children to accompany your employee is also a good idea.
An employee incentive getaway generally lasts from three nights to a full week, but weekend getaways can also work for smaller budgets. Accommodation could be in a bed and breakfast. Check travel and hotel websites often to catch their “travel best bets.”
Conclusion
For any corporate incentive travel program to accomplish its goal, you must determine how much you can spend, what options are available and what people want. And you must anticipate potential problems both within and without your organization. A clear system for measuring results will help you with future planning. Even on a smaller budget, corporate incentive travel can benefit your organization.
Linda Bustos is the Director of Marketing for Image X Media, a full service web design firm in Vancouver.
Back to HR Article Directory
How To Create Lasting Change & Achieve Greater Success At Work
“This year, I’m going to get that raise.”
“I will get my desk organized once and for all.”
“I’ll have better work/life balance.”
“I’ll start that business I’ve always dreamed about.”
At some point we’ve all vowed to make some big change – similar to the resolutions above. But by the time the rosy blush of good intentions wears off, the resolution gets pushed aside. Not because we don’t still long to have what we want, but because we just don’t know how to change.
Changing your behavior takes work.
Our brains have enormous “plasticity,” meaning they can create new cells and pathways. But our brains create strong tendencies to do the same thing over and over.
Here’s why:
The brain cells that fire together wire together. Meaning, they have a strong tendency to run the same program the next time. That’s why lasting change takes lots of practice; you’ve got to create a pathway to the new options.
According to many brain scientists it can take six to nine months to change your behavior. Yet people continue to waste so much money on those seven-day miracle programs and then wonder why they have not experienced lasting change and greater success at work.
Here’s The Top 3 Reasons Why Many Business Entrepreneurs and Executives Fail To Change Their Behavior & Achieve Greater Business Success:
1. They’ve not yet realized that the change process is not about getting rid of bad habits. The pathway to your current behavior is there for life. Instead you want to focus on creating new, more positive habits that will positively affect your business. Even stopping doing something, like procrastinating, is really about creating a good new habit, starting sooner.
2. They fail to put external reminders in place, at least in the beginning. Unless you have a trigger from the outside like an email reminder, or a buddy it’s very likely you’ll keep defaulting to the old behavior because it’s automatic. That’s also why it’s so important to be willing to start over no matter how often you blow it or get discouraged.
3. They’re not concrete enough about what they want and are unrealistic about what they can reasonably ask themselves to change. Here’s what an executive client of mine said he wanted to change in three months: “to be more positive with co-workers, staff and colleagues, to be more creative and productive and to take better care of myself.” “How about create world peace while you’re at it?” I replied. “And what does `more’ mean anyway? As this client demonstrated, we expect too much of ourselves and we expect to change overnight. When that doesn’t happen, we resign ourselves to staying the same, convinced that we are hopeless, weak, or unmotivated. Which makes us even more stuck in a rut.
To truly change your behavior and achiever greater business success requires three things: desire, intent, and persistence. You have to identify what you desire enough to be willing to stick to. You have to make SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) like “leave the computer at the office and don’t look at the Blackberry after 9” rather than “having more balance”. You need determination and persistence to try again no matter how many times you blow it. Most importantly you need to avoid my top 10 common resolution pitfalls.
My Top 10 List of Resolution Pitfalls
1. Being vague about what you want
2. Not making a serious commitment
3. Excuse-making—no time, wrong time, dog ate homework 4. Unwilling to go through the awkward phase 5. Not setting up a tracking and reminder system 6. Expecting perfection and falling into guilt, shame, and regret 7. Trying to change by yourself 8. Telling yourself self-limiting rut stories 9. Not having backup plans 10. Turning slip-ups to give-ups
Armed with a new attitude and behavior, you can create lasting change and achieve greater success at work. When you have this invaluable tool in your arsenal, you’ll be empowered to bring anything you want into reality. You’ll become the master of your fate rather than the victim of old choices.
bio: M.J. Ryan is an executive coach and the author of THIS YEAR I WILL…How to Finally Change a Habit, Keep a Resolution or Make a Dream Come True. To receive a ton of free resources including free daily “I Will Power” emails that will help you make and actually keep your promises and achieve greater business success this year, go to http://www.mj-ryan.com
bio: M.J. Ryan is an executive coach and the author of THIS YEAR I WILL…How to Finally Change a Habit, Keep a Resolution or Make a Dream Come True. To receive a ton of free resources including free daily “I Will Power” emails that will help you make and actually keep your promises and achieve greater business success this year, go to http://www.mj-ryan.com
Back to HR Article Directory
“I will get my desk organized once and for all.”
“I’ll have better work/life balance.”
“I’ll start that business I’ve always dreamed about.”
At some point we’ve all vowed to make some big change – similar to the resolutions above. But by the time the rosy blush of good intentions wears off, the resolution gets pushed aside. Not because we don’t still long to have what we want, but because we just don’t know how to change.
Changing your behavior takes work.
Our brains have enormous “plasticity,” meaning they can create new cells and pathways. But our brains create strong tendencies to do the same thing over and over.
Here’s why:
The brain cells that fire together wire together. Meaning, they have a strong tendency to run the same program the next time. That’s why lasting change takes lots of practice; you’ve got to create a pathway to the new options.
According to many brain scientists it can take six to nine months to change your behavior. Yet people continue to waste so much money on those seven-day miracle programs and then wonder why they have not experienced lasting change and greater success at work.
Here’s The Top 3 Reasons Why Many Business Entrepreneurs and Executives Fail To Change Their Behavior & Achieve Greater Business Success:
1. They’ve not yet realized that the change process is not about getting rid of bad habits. The pathway to your current behavior is there for life. Instead you want to focus on creating new, more positive habits that will positively affect your business. Even stopping doing something, like procrastinating, is really about creating a good new habit, starting sooner.
2. They fail to put external reminders in place, at least in the beginning. Unless you have a trigger from the outside like an email reminder, or a buddy it’s very likely you’ll keep defaulting to the old behavior because it’s automatic. That’s also why it’s so important to be willing to start over no matter how often you blow it or get discouraged.
3. They’re not concrete enough about what they want and are unrealistic about what they can reasonably ask themselves to change. Here’s what an executive client of mine said he wanted to change in three months: “to be more positive with co-workers, staff and colleagues, to be more creative and productive and to take better care of myself.” “How about create world peace while you’re at it?” I replied. “And what does `more’ mean anyway? As this client demonstrated, we expect too much of ourselves and we expect to change overnight. When that doesn’t happen, we resign ourselves to staying the same, convinced that we are hopeless, weak, or unmotivated. Which makes us even more stuck in a rut.
To truly change your behavior and achiever greater business success requires three things: desire, intent, and persistence. You have to identify what you desire enough to be willing to stick to. You have to make SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) like “leave the computer at the office and don’t look at the Blackberry after 9” rather than “having more balance”. You need determination and persistence to try again no matter how many times you blow it. Most importantly you need to avoid my top 10 common resolution pitfalls.
My Top 10 List of Resolution Pitfalls
1. Being vague about what you want
2. Not making a serious commitment
3. Excuse-making—no time, wrong time, dog ate homework 4. Unwilling to go through the awkward phase 5. Not setting up a tracking and reminder system 6. Expecting perfection and falling into guilt, shame, and regret 7. Trying to change by yourself 8. Telling yourself self-limiting rut stories 9. Not having backup plans 10. Turning slip-ups to give-ups
Armed with a new attitude and behavior, you can create lasting change and achieve greater success at work. When you have this invaluable tool in your arsenal, you’ll be empowered to bring anything you want into reality. You’ll become the master of your fate rather than the victim of old choices.
bio: M.J. Ryan is an executive coach and the author of THIS YEAR I WILL…How to Finally Change a Habit, Keep a Resolution or Make a Dream Come True. To receive a ton of free resources including free daily “I Will Power” emails that will help you make and actually keep your promises and achieve greater business success this year, go to http://www.mj-ryan.com
bio: M.J. Ryan is an executive coach and the author of THIS YEAR I WILL…How to Finally Change a Habit, Keep a Resolution or Make a Dream Come True. To receive a ton of free resources including free daily “I Will Power” emails that will help you make and actually keep your promises and achieve greater business success this year, go to http://www.mj-ryan.com
Back to HR Article Directory
Employee Performance Appraisal — An Ideal System
Creating a Link Between Company Success and Employee Accountability
In America’s best-run and most-admired organizations, employee performance appraisal is a vital and vigorous management tool. No other management process has as much influence on individuals’ careers and work lives. Used well, employee performance appraisal is the most powerful instrument that organizations have to mobilize the energy of every employee in the enterprise toward the achievement of strategic goals. Employee performance appraisal can focus each person’s attention on the company’s mission, vision and values. And ideally, the process can answer the two fundamental questions that every single person in the organization wants the answers to: What do you expect of me? And How am I doing?
But most folks scoff at the idea that there might be a perfect system for doing employee performance appraisal. They think that since their organization is “unique,” then their system for analyzing employee performance must be unique, too. How foolish.
Don’t scoff — there is an ideal method for the assessment process. In organizations that take employee performance appraisal seriously and use the process well, the system functions as an on-going process – not merely an annual event – by following a four-phase model.
Phase 1 — Employee Performance Planning
At the beginning of the year, the manager meets with each person for discussion on the planning piece of the employee performance appraisal process. In this hour-long session they discuss the “how” and the “what” of the job:
How the person will do the job (the behaviors and competencies expected of the company’s members), and
What results the person will achieve over the next twelve months (the key responsibilities of the person’s job and the goals and projects the person will work on).
They also discuss the individual’s development plans. This discussion immediately generates improved employee performance because people know exactly what’s expected of them. And as the manager, you have just earned the right to hold people accountable at the end of the year by making your expectations of them clear from the start.
Phase 2 — Employee Performance Execution
Over the course of the year, employee performance should be focused on achieving the goals, objectives and key responsibilities of the job. The manager provides coaching and feedback to the individual to increase the probability of success and creates the conditions that motivate and resolve any performance problems that arise.
Midway through the year — perhaps even more frequently — they meet to review the individual’s progress toward the plans and goals discussed in the employee performance planning meeting. And the employee is responsible for certain elements of that progress – seeking out coaching and asking for feedback are two key examples.
Phase 3 — Employee Performance Assessment
As the time for the formal employee performance appraisal approaches, the manager reflects on how well the subordinate has performed over the course of the year, assembles the various forms and paperwork that the organization provides to make this assessment, and fills them out. The manager may also recommend a change in the individual’s compensation based on the quality of the individual’s work.
Best practice calls for the appraiser’s boss to review the completed assessment form before discussing it with the assessed employee. One key here is not falling victim to the “myth of quantifiability” — the erroneous belief that in order to be objective you’ve got to have numerical data to prove your assessments. Nonsense! An employee performance appraisal is a record of a manager’s opinion of an employee’s quality of work, so don’t shirk from candidly providing that opinion.
Phase 4 — Employee Performance Review
The manager and the subordinate meet, usually for about an hour. The employee performance appraisal form is reviewed with the self-appraisal that the individual created assessing her own performance. The manager and employee talk honestly about how well she performed over the past twelve months: Strengths, weaknesses, successes and areas needing improvement. At the end of the review meeting they set a date to meet again to hold an employee performance planning discussion for the upcoming twelve months, starting the process anew.
This four-phase performance appraisal process not only transforms employee performance management from an annual event to an on-going cycle, it tightly links the performance of each organization member with the mission and values of the company as a whole. And that’s the real purpose of employee performance appraisal in the organization. The real value is focusing everyone’s attention on what is genuinely important — the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals through demonstration of the company’s vision and values in each employee’s day-to-day behavior.
About Dick Grote (HTML)
Dick Grote has been a management consultant for almost thirty years, specializing exclusively in the field of employee performance appraisal and management. As a consultant, he has created employee performance management systems for several hundred of the world’s best known and most respected companies, including Texas Instruments, JCPenney, Miller Brewing Company, American Airlines, Macy’s, Raytheon, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and Herman Miller. His company, Grote Consulting, specializes in employee performance appraisal, employee improvement and talent management.
For more information about Dick Grote and Grote Consulting, visit: http://www.groteconsulting.com/
Back to HR Article Directory
In America’s best-run and most-admired organizations, employee performance appraisal is a vital and vigorous management tool. No other management process has as much influence on individuals’ careers and work lives. Used well, employee performance appraisal is the most powerful instrument that organizations have to mobilize the energy of every employee in the enterprise toward the achievement of strategic goals. Employee performance appraisal can focus each person’s attention on the company’s mission, vision and values. And ideally, the process can answer the two fundamental questions that every single person in the organization wants the answers to: What do you expect of me? And How am I doing?
But most folks scoff at the idea that there might be a perfect system for doing employee performance appraisal. They think that since their organization is “unique,” then their system for analyzing employee performance must be unique, too. How foolish.
Don’t scoff — there is an ideal method for the assessment process. In organizations that take employee performance appraisal seriously and use the process well, the system functions as an on-going process – not merely an annual event – by following a four-phase model.
Phase 1 — Employee Performance Planning
At the beginning of the year, the manager meets with each person for discussion on the planning piece of the employee performance appraisal process. In this hour-long session they discuss the “how” and the “what” of the job:
How the person will do the job (the behaviors and competencies expected of the company’s members), and
What results the person will achieve over the next twelve months (the key responsibilities of the person’s job and the goals and projects the person will work on).
They also discuss the individual’s development plans. This discussion immediately generates improved employee performance because people know exactly what’s expected of them. And as the manager, you have just earned the right to hold people accountable at the end of the year by making your expectations of them clear from the start.
Phase 2 — Employee Performance Execution
Over the course of the year, employee performance should be focused on achieving the goals, objectives and key responsibilities of the job. The manager provides coaching and feedback to the individual to increase the probability of success and creates the conditions that motivate and resolve any performance problems that arise.
Midway through the year — perhaps even more frequently — they meet to review the individual’s progress toward the plans and goals discussed in the employee performance planning meeting. And the employee is responsible for certain elements of that progress – seeking out coaching and asking for feedback are two key examples.
Phase 3 — Employee Performance Assessment
As the time for the formal employee performance appraisal approaches, the manager reflects on how well the subordinate has performed over the course of the year, assembles the various forms and paperwork that the organization provides to make this assessment, and fills them out. The manager may also recommend a change in the individual’s compensation based on the quality of the individual’s work.
Best practice calls for the appraiser’s boss to review the completed assessment form before discussing it with the assessed employee. One key here is not falling victim to the “myth of quantifiability” — the erroneous belief that in order to be objective you’ve got to have numerical data to prove your assessments. Nonsense! An employee performance appraisal is a record of a manager’s opinion of an employee’s quality of work, so don’t shirk from candidly providing that opinion.
Phase 4 — Employee Performance Review
The manager and the subordinate meet, usually for about an hour. The employee performance appraisal form is reviewed with the self-appraisal that the individual created assessing her own performance. The manager and employee talk honestly about how well she performed over the past twelve months: Strengths, weaknesses, successes and areas needing improvement. At the end of the review meeting they set a date to meet again to hold an employee performance planning discussion for the upcoming twelve months, starting the process anew.
This four-phase performance appraisal process not only transforms employee performance management from an annual event to an on-going cycle, it tightly links the performance of each organization member with the mission and values of the company as a whole. And that’s the real purpose of employee performance appraisal in the organization. The real value is focusing everyone’s attention on what is genuinely important — the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals through demonstration of the company’s vision and values in each employee’s day-to-day behavior.
About Dick Grote (HTML)
Dick Grote has been a management consultant for almost thirty years, specializing exclusively in the field of employee performance appraisal and management. As a consultant, he has created employee performance management systems for several hundred of the world’s best known and most respected companies, including Texas Instruments, JCPenney, Miller Brewing Company, American Airlines, Macy’s, Raytheon, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and Herman Miller. His company, Grote Consulting, specializes in employee performance appraisal, employee improvement and talent management.
For more information about Dick Grote and Grote Consulting, visit: http://www.groteconsulting.com/
Back to HR Article Directory
New Goal for Human Resources:Establishing a Work Force of One
By Susan Cantrell
From The Wall Street Journal Online
When it comes to human resources, one size no longer fits all.
For years, companies used standardized human-resources plans for recruiting and managing workers. One set of rules dictated everything from the kinds of benefits and rewards the company offered to how employees were trained and evaluated. That approach made things easier for the human-resources department and ensured a degree of efficiency, equality and fairness.
Now some executives are finding that this model isn't adequate for getting the most out of existing talent or attracting and keeping new people. To be competitive in the marketplace and in the race for talent, companies must understand and address the diverse needs of their work force. In fact, they must treat each employee as a "work force of one."
Why is a new approach necessary? Competition for talent is tougher, and the work force is growing more mobile and diverse, in terms of culture, education and individual aspirations. Workers today, increasingly accustomed to more-tailored offerings as consumers, are more likely to be attracted to and remain at a company that provides more-tailored offerings to them as employees -- flexible schedules, for instance, or a customized career path.
In addition, the growing recognition that business results are largely attributable to employee performance is leading many executives to seek creative ways of significantly improving that performance.
Surveys and interviews with managers and human-resources executives at 51 companies showed four techniques that organizations are using to achieve high performance by better addressing employees' needs. Some companies group together employees with common needs and preferences and provide solutions that are tailored to each set, such as different schedules or compensation plans. Others give all their workers a range of options and let them choose what suits them best -- everything from their benefits to their work environment.
In some cases, these new plans involve replacing specific human-resources mandates with simple, broad policies that can be applied in a variety of ways to suit individual needs, such as flexible budgets that let line managers use their own discretion to set salaries. Other arrangements focus on general management practices that recognize the individual, such as coaching or mentoring.
What follows is a look at the four methods and how they can help companies -- along with a discussion of some of the hurdles companies may encounter as they put these plans in place. Some of the practices described here are now commonplace, and some are unique. But they are all examples of a growing trend toward a more individualized approach to people management. By applying one or more of the techniques, companies can create new and innovative practices that will keep employees satisfied and productive.
Segment the Work Force
Just as marketing departments organize customers into groups, human-resources departments can segment employees in different ways to boost worker productivity and satisfaction -- and make the organization more effective.
Segmenting takes a variety of forms. Procter & Gamble Co. uses segmenting when recruiting, crafting targeted messages for certain types of potential employees. Many companies, such as those in the consulting and advertising industries, provide customized offerings for employees -- consultants are often equipped to work remotely, for example, and writers and artists sometimes receive unique incentive schemes and work environments designed to elicit creativity.
In recent years, a number of employers have begun to segment based on the employee's value to the organization. Labeling certain employees "high potentials" or "A players" based on past or predicted performance has given way to segmenting employees based on their relative contribution to the company's performance. International Business Machines Corp., for example, offers specialized development opportunities to employees in critical job roles.
A number of employers are designing more unusual segmentation strategies designed to play to individuals' varied needs. One research-and-development group at a technology company created several distinct roles for its engineers based on their personality and interests. The standard role is designed for engineers who prefer to concentrate on one project at a time. But those who don't like that work style have a chance to become "parachutists," dropping in on projects and solving problems for short periods of time. Meanwhile, those who are good at representing the company's work to outsiders can become "ambassadors."
Although it is relatively easy to segment employees based on job characteristics, such as where they're located or how much they travel, companies must be careful when segmenting employees based on traits such as age or personality. Employment law protects many classes of people based on such traits. When segmenting people based on personal traits -- for example, giving special consideration to older workers who need flexible schedules -- companies should only suggest such considerations and offer employees options, never force them to make certain choices.
Offer Choices
An alternative way of creating customized employee experiences is to allow employees to choose from a standard set of choices defined by the human-resources department. In recent years, for example, a growing number of employers have provided full-time employees with "cafeteria" benefit plans, which allow people to pick the options they value most.
Now companies are becoming creative about offering choices in other areas. Sun Microsystems Inc. asks employees to identify the type of physical setting that suits them best -- a private office, team room, satellite center or their home office. Microsoft Corp. goes so far as to ask certain types of employees to design their own career paths. The company offers software engineers both a management-focused and technical-specialist career track and allows them to move back and forth between the two.
Be Flexible
Many companies are saddled with human-resources policies that are so specific that they are no longer relevant. They then become bureaucratic barriers to effective management and undermine performance. Increasingly, companies are creating more general human-resources policies that give workers greater discretion, within clearly defined limits, to apply the policies in ways that suit their unique needs.
"Broad-band compensation," used by Merrill Lynch & Co. and Nike Inc., among others, is a common example of such an approach. In this plan, companies use fewer, wider salary ranges rather than many specific job classifications and pay grades. This gives managers more latitude to compensate top performers, for instance, or to offer more money to land a star. Similarly, car-rental company Avis Budget Group Inc. allows department managers to control their budgets within pre-set limits. If managers want to reward one employee with a big chunk of that money, they are free to do so.
Some companies, meanwhile, are setting up loose, "cascading" performance goals for their workers. Clothing chain Men's Wearhouse Inc. establishes sales targets for its stores, but doesn't dictate how employees should reach those targets, as other chains may do. "There are a variety of ways that stores meet these goals," says Charlie Bresler, president of Men's Wearhouse. Some stores have a few "wardrobe consultants" who excel at selling, for instance, while other stores have their consultants sell in teams.
"Stores hit their goals in different ways, and that is not only tolerated but encouraged," Mr. Bresler says.
Some organizations are even redefining the norms around work. At Best Buy Co. headquarters in Richfield, Minn., about a third of the 4,000 or so employees are allowed to set their own work hours and to decide whether they work from the office or home -- provided they can get the job done on time. As a result, Best Buy says, it has seen job satisfaction and productivity rise.
Get Personal
The preceding options are all primarily driven by human resources. But employee performance can be improved just as much if not more by general management practices that recognize the individual. Managers might offer one-on-one coaching or mentoring, or redefine a job's focus to line up with an employee's strengths.
Men's Wearhouse has largely replaced traditional training methods with an apprenticeship model, which the company has found to be far more effective. Store managers are encouraged to demonstrate effective sales approaches and to coach employees to develop a personal style of their own.
Likewise, some companies are reconsidering how they approach performance reviews. In traditional settings, human resources controls how and when the performance appraisal takes place, and managers are directed to evaluate how well employees have mastered the fundamental requirements of the job. But as work becomes more team- and project-based, it is becoming more difficult to have a standard set of requirements.
So, many companies supplement traditional performance reviews with continuing discussions with employees about goals and progress. This has a number of advantages. Problems can be caught earlier on, and feedback can be much more specific than with a traditional annual review. And employees are more likely to learn from feedback if they receive it soon after a noteworthy event and in the context of their regular workday.
Microsoft, which has a similar program in place, supports it with an information system that lets managers and employees record informal feedback confidentially. The information isn't reported to human resources and doesn't follow the employee from job to job. Instead, employees and managers use the information for their own reference. This system makes it more likely that managers will say what they really think -- and thus provide helpful guidance to employees.
* * *
Of course, these approaches come with a number of caveats.
For one thing, implementing any of these practices will mean big changes for companies with traditional human-resources departments. In some cases, human resources' primary role will be to support the line managers and employees who have the responsibility for carrying out the new plans, encouraging and facilitating good management practices and building a culture and work environment that support them. Software company SAP Americas, a division of SAP AG, makes sure that human-resources professionals focus on coaching managers on how to provide informal feedback to their employees through coaching or mentoring. Corning Inc. seeds some of its best people-managers throughout the organization to model and teach effective practices.
These practices can also require a difficult balancing act. In environments where managers treat individual employees differently, maintaining a sense of fundamental fairness is crucial. Managers need to take workers' concerns seriously, recognizing that negative feelings can be extremely harmful to the business.
The best way managers can respond to employee concerns is to be as open as possible about how they make decisions, and to have a clear rationale for decisions and policies. It's also important to be consistent about how decisions are made and to respond to questions in a sensitive, respectful way. And management should take steps to ensure employees that the company is strongly committed to equal opportunity and that legal protections against discrimination remain in place.
Finally, these practices work better in some contexts than in others. Government regulation is one critical factor. Many countries, such as Belgium and France, have strict labor rules that may make more customized practices difficult or impossible to introduce. Even in the U.S., some customized practices may bump up against rules about equal opportunity or retirement-plan security. Therefore, many companies use flexible policies to supplement, rather than replace, established programs.
In addition, some industries are more open to customization strategies than others. Advertising, consulting, financial services and entertainment, for instance, need highly independent and driven people to be successful. In return, these industries have been more than willing to offer work arrangements tailored to individuals to attract and retain top talent. Indeed, even particular departments inside companies are better suited for work-force-of-one policies than others. Positions that are knowledge-intensive, such as copy writing, tend to be a better fit for these policies than those that are more routine, or location-based, such as call centers.
The culture and history of the company itself also matter. Small, younger companies often operate without formal human-resources structures as a matter of course. The four techniques are thus more appropriate for larger companies seeking a way to introduce customization and flexibility without abandoning control and structure.
It's difficult to make the change from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more customized one. Doing so requires senior managers to discard familiar policies and practices and adopt a new, more responsive system from the ground up. However, companies that do it right will have unprecedented opportunities to develop the talent they need to become more competitive, high-performance organizations.
From The Wall Street Journal Online
When it comes to human resources, one size no longer fits all.
For years, companies used standardized human-resources plans for recruiting and managing workers. One set of rules dictated everything from the kinds of benefits and rewards the company offered to how employees were trained and evaluated. That approach made things easier for the human-resources department and ensured a degree of efficiency, equality and fairness.
Now some executives are finding that this model isn't adequate for getting the most out of existing talent or attracting and keeping new people. To be competitive in the marketplace and in the race for talent, companies must understand and address the diverse needs of their work force. In fact, they must treat each employee as a "work force of one."
Why is a new approach necessary? Competition for talent is tougher, and the work force is growing more mobile and diverse, in terms of culture, education and individual aspirations. Workers today, increasingly accustomed to more-tailored offerings as consumers, are more likely to be attracted to and remain at a company that provides more-tailored offerings to them as employees -- flexible schedules, for instance, or a customized career path.
In addition, the growing recognition that business results are largely attributable to employee performance is leading many executives to seek creative ways of significantly improving that performance.
Surveys and interviews with managers and human-resources executives at 51 companies showed four techniques that organizations are using to achieve high performance by better addressing employees' needs. Some companies group together employees with common needs and preferences and provide solutions that are tailored to each set, such as different schedules or compensation plans. Others give all their workers a range of options and let them choose what suits them best -- everything from their benefits to their work environment.
In some cases, these new plans involve replacing specific human-resources mandates with simple, broad policies that can be applied in a variety of ways to suit individual needs, such as flexible budgets that let line managers use their own discretion to set salaries. Other arrangements focus on general management practices that recognize the individual, such as coaching or mentoring.
What follows is a look at the four methods and how they can help companies -- along with a discussion of some of the hurdles companies may encounter as they put these plans in place. Some of the practices described here are now commonplace, and some are unique. But they are all examples of a growing trend toward a more individualized approach to people management. By applying one or more of the techniques, companies can create new and innovative practices that will keep employees satisfied and productive.
Segment the Work Force
Just as marketing departments organize customers into groups, human-resources departments can segment employees in different ways to boost worker productivity and satisfaction -- and make the organization more effective.
Segmenting takes a variety of forms. Procter & Gamble Co. uses segmenting when recruiting, crafting targeted messages for certain types of potential employees. Many companies, such as those in the consulting and advertising industries, provide customized offerings for employees -- consultants are often equipped to work remotely, for example, and writers and artists sometimes receive unique incentive schemes and work environments designed to elicit creativity.
In recent years, a number of employers have begun to segment based on the employee's value to the organization. Labeling certain employees "high potentials" or "A players" based on past or predicted performance has given way to segmenting employees based on their relative contribution to the company's performance. International Business Machines Corp., for example, offers specialized development opportunities to employees in critical job roles.
A number of employers are designing more unusual segmentation strategies designed to play to individuals' varied needs. One research-and-development group at a technology company created several distinct roles for its engineers based on their personality and interests. The standard role is designed for engineers who prefer to concentrate on one project at a time. But those who don't like that work style have a chance to become "parachutists," dropping in on projects and solving problems for short periods of time. Meanwhile, those who are good at representing the company's work to outsiders can become "ambassadors."
Although it is relatively easy to segment employees based on job characteristics, such as where they're located or how much they travel, companies must be careful when segmenting employees based on traits such as age or personality. Employment law protects many classes of people based on such traits. When segmenting people based on personal traits -- for example, giving special consideration to older workers who need flexible schedules -- companies should only suggest such considerations and offer employees options, never force them to make certain choices.
Offer Choices
An alternative way of creating customized employee experiences is to allow employees to choose from a standard set of choices defined by the human-resources department. In recent years, for example, a growing number of employers have provided full-time employees with "cafeteria" benefit plans, which allow people to pick the options they value most.
Now companies are becoming creative about offering choices in other areas. Sun Microsystems Inc. asks employees to identify the type of physical setting that suits them best -- a private office, team room, satellite center or their home office. Microsoft Corp. goes so far as to ask certain types of employees to design their own career paths. The company offers software engineers both a management-focused and technical-specialist career track and allows them to move back and forth between the two.
Be Flexible
Many companies are saddled with human-resources policies that are so specific that they are no longer relevant. They then become bureaucratic barriers to effective management and undermine performance. Increasingly, companies are creating more general human-resources policies that give workers greater discretion, within clearly defined limits, to apply the policies in ways that suit their unique needs.
"Broad-band compensation," used by Merrill Lynch & Co. and Nike Inc., among others, is a common example of such an approach. In this plan, companies use fewer, wider salary ranges rather than many specific job classifications and pay grades. This gives managers more latitude to compensate top performers, for instance, or to offer more money to land a star. Similarly, car-rental company Avis Budget Group Inc. allows department managers to control their budgets within pre-set limits. If managers want to reward one employee with a big chunk of that money, they are free to do so.
Some companies, meanwhile, are setting up loose, "cascading" performance goals for their workers. Clothing chain Men's Wearhouse Inc. establishes sales targets for its stores, but doesn't dictate how employees should reach those targets, as other chains may do. "There are a variety of ways that stores meet these goals," says Charlie Bresler, president of Men's Wearhouse. Some stores have a few "wardrobe consultants" who excel at selling, for instance, while other stores have their consultants sell in teams.
"Stores hit their goals in different ways, and that is not only tolerated but encouraged," Mr. Bresler says.
Some organizations are even redefining the norms around work. At Best Buy Co. headquarters in Richfield, Minn., about a third of the 4,000 or so employees are allowed to set their own work hours and to decide whether they work from the office or home -- provided they can get the job done on time. As a result, Best Buy says, it has seen job satisfaction and productivity rise.
Get Personal
The preceding options are all primarily driven by human resources. But employee performance can be improved just as much if not more by general management practices that recognize the individual. Managers might offer one-on-one coaching or mentoring, or redefine a job's focus to line up with an employee's strengths.
Men's Wearhouse has largely replaced traditional training methods with an apprenticeship model, which the company has found to be far more effective. Store managers are encouraged to demonstrate effective sales approaches and to coach employees to develop a personal style of their own.
Likewise, some companies are reconsidering how they approach performance reviews. In traditional settings, human resources controls how and when the performance appraisal takes place, and managers are directed to evaluate how well employees have mastered the fundamental requirements of the job. But as work becomes more team- and project-based, it is becoming more difficult to have a standard set of requirements.
So, many companies supplement traditional performance reviews with continuing discussions with employees about goals and progress. This has a number of advantages. Problems can be caught earlier on, and feedback can be much more specific than with a traditional annual review. And employees are more likely to learn from feedback if they receive it soon after a noteworthy event and in the context of their regular workday.
Microsoft, which has a similar program in place, supports it with an information system that lets managers and employees record informal feedback confidentially. The information isn't reported to human resources and doesn't follow the employee from job to job. Instead, employees and managers use the information for their own reference. This system makes it more likely that managers will say what they really think -- and thus provide helpful guidance to employees.
* * *
Of course, these approaches come with a number of caveats.
For one thing, implementing any of these practices will mean big changes for companies with traditional human-resources departments. In some cases, human resources' primary role will be to support the line managers and employees who have the responsibility for carrying out the new plans, encouraging and facilitating good management practices and building a culture and work environment that support them. Software company SAP Americas, a division of SAP AG, makes sure that human-resources professionals focus on coaching managers on how to provide informal feedback to their employees through coaching or mentoring. Corning Inc. seeds some of its best people-managers throughout the organization to model and teach effective practices.
These practices can also require a difficult balancing act. In environments where managers treat individual employees differently, maintaining a sense of fundamental fairness is crucial. Managers need to take workers' concerns seriously, recognizing that negative feelings can be extremely harmful to the business.
The best way managers can respond to employee concerns is to be as open as possible about how they make decisions, and to have a clear rationale for decisions and policies. It's also important to be consistent about how decisions are made and to respond to questions in a sensitive, respectful way. And management should take steps to ensure employees that the company is strongly committed to equal opportunity and that legal protections against discrimination remain in place.
Finally, these practices work better in some contexts than in others. Government regulation is one critical factor. Many countries, such as Belgium and France, have strict labor rules that may make more customized practices difficult or impossible to introduce. Even in the U.S., some customized practices may bump up against rules about equal opportunity or retirement-plan security. Therefore, many companies use flexible policies to supplement, rather than replace, established programs.
In addition, some industries are more open to customization strategies than others. Advertising, consulting, financial services and entertainment, for instance, need highly independent and driven people to be successful. In return, these industries have been more than willing to offer work arrangements tailored to individuals to attract and retain top talent. Indeed, even particular departments inside companies are better suited for work-force-of-one policies than others. Positions that are knowledge-intensive, such as copy writing, tend to be a better fit for these policies than those that are more routine, or location-based, such as call centers.
The culture and history of the company itself also matter. Small, younger companies often operate without formal human-resources structures as a matter of course. The four techniques are thus more appropriate for larger companies seeking a way to introduce customization and flexibility without abandoning control and structure.
It's difficult to make the change from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more customized one. Doing so requires senior managers to discard familiar policies and practices and adopt a new, more responsive system from the ground up. However, companies that do it right will have unprecedented opportunities to develop the talent they need to become more competitive, high-performance organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)