Morgan HR NEWS

“According to a 2017 Gallup Survey, 3 out of 10 employees strongly agreed that their opinions don’t count at work.”

I recently sat in on a webinar/discussion section regarding “what psychological safety is not.” Before discussing what I learned during the session, let’s cover what psychological safety is.

From what I understand, psychological safety is a belief that all questions, suggestions, and opinions are viewed and supported as valid within the workplace. To put it simply, a psychologically safe work environment supports ideas that come from all employees, regardless of their status within the organizational hierarchy. This kind of environment rewards vulnerability through inclusion, which opens the door for more innovation. The more diverse thoughts a company has, the better chance they have to foster creativity and explore different avenues to improve their product or service.

That being said, according to the session I attended, there are seven common ways that a company might think they are fostering psychological safety when in reality they are creating a problematic work environment one way or another. Psychological safety is not:

Looking at a company’s proxy statement, you’d quickly locate a message from their CEO, information for/ about their board of directors, details about their executive compensation, and a compilation of shareholder proposals. Today, what you’d also see, is a section dedicated to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) along with an area for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) matters. When did these sections become so prominent? Where did we start?

To begin, we have to jump back to affirmative action. Affirmative action started back in 1963, as President Lyndon B. Johnson set in place a plan to make an effort to improve the employment or education opportunities for members of minority groups and women. Unfortunately, good intentions don’t always lead to good outcomes. The racial quotas and minority “set-asides” of the 70s led to court challenges, as affirmative action turned into a form of “reverse discrimination,” since white applicants were denied opportunities held for minorities. The 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, prohibited all public institutions/agencies from giving preferential treatment to individuals based on their race or sex, and other similar cases followed suit.

A switch away from race quotas and affirmative action led to diversity education and training in the 90s. What started as gender diversity education expanded to include ability, ethnicity, religion, and other worldviews. With this diversity training came an emphasis on inclusion as well, where those that might be excluded are brought into processes and activities that provide equal access to opportunities. The goal of diversity and inclusion is to encourage people to consider and welcome their colleagues, regardless of the diverse ways of identifying as cultural beings. Equity acknowledges the different (dis)advantages of individuals and promotes the allocation of resources and opportunities such that each individual has the same possible outcome.

Along with DEI, companies have been addressing their ESG matters as well. For example, the Environmental, Social, and Governance factors are used by investors to measure the non-financial performance details of a company, which helps them decide where to invest their money. Some environmental factors include waste, resource depletion, and emissions; some social factors are employee relations, diversity, and working conditions; and a few governance factors are tax strategy, board diversity/structure, and executive remuneration. These are just a few of the criteria that investors will use to analyze the company’s performance and the likelihood of your success as a shareholder.

A new focus has been placed on the non-financial side of a company’s performance. Shareholders are looking for more information than profits and losses, and companies keep up with the demand by publishing statements on their DEI & ESG goals.

Ever have that conversation with your compensation committee that ended with “I’m sure all of what you’re doing is fantastic, we don’t have any questions, so let’s get together again next year”?

I did not think so. 

As you know, the compensation committee is not formed to just let things shape on their own.  Shareholders look to company boards, particularly the compensation committee, as their stewards to review and approve executive pay.  Boards in turn work closely with executive leaders in matters relating to employees, operations, partners, customers and overall financial performance.  Some compensation committees dig deeper and wider to not only review executive pay but review and question broader key HR practices. 

The fact that most directors on the compensation committee are independent, have diverse experiences and exposures, and are held to significant standards, rules, and laws, make their influence levels stronger across the HR spectrum.  The board is chartered to champion responsible corporate governance and be morally responsible.  The board and the compensation committee are further challenged to cultivate an image to be more inclusive and responsive to stockholder concerns.  In turn, most compensation-related projects that I’ve been chartered to deliver were stemmed from a compensation committee’s specific request to address a perceived gap or issue.

The most common compensation committee request that I have received, centers on bonus plan design and performance metrics.  What worked for a company for years may suddenly be subject to a challenge when a new compensation committee member asks a simple question, “why does this plan have so much discretion?”  Ever hear questions like that?  I’m sure you have or you will soon.

As company’s grow, pay design and delivery need to be reviewed.  The CEO at one point may have known every single employee.  The delivery of the bonus awards in those days may have been motivational, relevant, and directly performance related.  At some point, though, with continued growth and hiring, the additional layers of leadership and delegation of authority begins to shape new opinions, ideas, and thoughts about how pay is designed and delivered.  The level of ‘discretionary’ awards may turn or feel like favoritism and create images of disparity.  The compensation committee therefore looks for more predictable, unbiased, and relevant bonus plan designs and aligned performance metrics.

With diversity, growth, and layers of leadership, companies find the need to document their compensation philosophy, review their pay design and structures, and communicate and train leaders and educate employees.  Make sure your pay practices are written well enough that all leaders can read the document and then understand it well enough to communicate the intention and delivery process. 

Remember, nothing is true until it is written. 

During the winter process of conducting performance and merit reviews, your employees may have also received promotions with new titles.  Perhaps over the year, your company acquired or merged with another, and your company held on to the employees’ legacy titles to make the integration process move faster.  You may have noticed that some locations of your company are using different titles for what you thought were the same job at your site.  In recent surveys, your managers and employees may have shared comments about their confusion about the difference between manager versus senior manager titles. You may have wondered if it was vital to add that specific technology to a job title. You may have noticed the Director jobs are similar but used in different ways – for example, “Marketing Director”, “Director Marketing”, “Director of Marketing”, “Director, Marketing” – are there secret values placed on the comma or word ‘of’?  Maybe your company has 425 unique job titles, and your company only has 450 positions.

If any of these examples sound familiar – perhaps it’s time for a job title clean-up!

The number of positions for a company correlates with company growth and its respective increased amount of work required to deliver on commitments.  Think of positions as the boxes on an organization chart.  Positions are filled by employees or vacant, waiting for the hiring of candidates.  Each position is assigned a job that describes the body of work that the position’s incumbent is responsible for delivering.

The number of jobs a company creates correlates with the company’s needs in a few ways.

We’ve heard how leaders feel titles are free and make employees feel good.  A job’s title is a shortened description that quickly identifies the type of work and responsibilities.  It should also align with a shared understanding of its level of authority and accountability within the company. For example, there may be multiple positions assigned with the same job, such as an Inside Sale Representative II.  Here we see it is a job in the Inside Sales job family or group of jobs that require similar experience and education.  It also quickly shows that it is a level higher than an entry-level job by the “II.” 

A job title is less confusing when aligned well to an internal structure while somewhat mirroring similar expectations externally.

When implementing a career hierarchy, consider what jobs to include now versus down the road a bit.  A company may assign a range of minimum requirements that aligns with the growth stages for an employee in that job’s specialty (e.g., Inside Sales Representative Levels I, II, III).  Imagine if all Inside Sales Representatives were at the lowest level and learning their jobs?  That may cause harm to the performance of that functional area.  At the same time, imagine if all Inside Sales Representatives were at the highest, most senior level that may cause that function to be high performance, yet high in talent costs.  It would be best to determine what jobs should be open for use today to support business goals and budgets.

Check out Laura’s published article in World at Work.

As 2020 winds down, many of us are hoping the old adage about finding strength in adversity is true. To say it’s been a whirlwind would be putting it mildly. The personal, professional, and financial impact of COVID and socioeconomic upheaval will reverberate into 2021 and beyond. From my vantage point, it’s a critical moment for business and HR leaders to reevaluate employee benefits and engagement strategies. Here are a few suggestions of places to start.

Going Back to the Basics

In times of uncertainty and stress, healthcare emerges as the essential element in the benefits package. As is expected—and as it should be—our research into employee benefits (request your copy below) confirms the most commonly promoted are medical insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, paid time off, and 401(k) plans. As the personal and economic fallout of COVID continues, job security and medical benefits take precedence over salary increases and cultural considerations.

Even tech-savvy younger generations who “… hold a dissatisfaction with corporate systems and traditional hierarchies” (according to a LinkedIn article by Anita Lettink) are absorbing the lessons of their parents’ decimated retirement plans and inadequate savings accounts. Where fun and quirky perks were all the rage a few years ago, now we expect more emphasis on core health offerings.

A New Definition of Wellness

Additionally, we anticipate job candidates will increasingly seek out firms who offer life insurance, long-term disability, and mental health support. As the Kaiser Family Foundation reports, “the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic downturn have taken a toll on mental health for many people, with over 30% of adults in the U.S. now reporting symptoms consistent with anxiety or depressive disorder.”

This reality coincides with a shift towards a more holistic view of employees, who may be struggling with remote learning, Zoom fatigue, and job dissatisfaction. Rebalancing the benefits portfolio in this context is more than just virtue signaling, it could have a very real positive impact on the livelihood of your employees and their entire families. It could also keep them from jumping ship.

Redefining Employee Engagement

According to a survey from careers website iHire, 62% of job seekers are considering a major career change in the coming year, and many of those predict a change is very likely. Although it may seem counterintuitive during a slowdown, investing in meaningful employee engagement may be the difference between strong retention and mass exodus when business picks back up.

What do I mean by meaningful employee engagement? It goes well beyond sponsored memberships to development platforms like Lynda or MasterClass. It requires an individualized approach to explore what makes someone tick, and what’s going to take them from a clock-watcher to a hungry chicken, as I like to call them.

Managers don’t have time or energy—or I would even argue, the responsibility—to ensure every direct report feels that they are in the right job at the right time. That’s why at Auxin Group we’ve developed an engagement model that provides on demand access to a curated team of outside experts. These vetted professionals provide targeted experiential learning and coaching to establish needed personal connections to guide a rewarding career path. I hear complaints from leaders that their employees are entitled, but what if they’re just bored and searching for an opportunity to channel their passions into their work?

The Advantage of a TCO Approach

In IT, total cost of ownership (TCO) includes the purchase price of a particular asset, plus operating costs over the asset’s lifespan. Looking at the total cost of ownership is a way of assessing the long-term value of an investment. A similar approach to employee benefits and engagement would serve businesses well in the post-pandemic world. 

The time is right to revisit the ROI on the considerable benefits expense—representing on average more than $20,000 annually per employee, according to BenefitsPro research. The time is also right to commit to full transparency of the employer’s cost of benefits over an employee’s tenure. If your core medical benefits don’t measure up, you’re creating churn and hampering future growth. Unless and until your employees can validate that you have their best interests in mind, they’re likely to be on the lookout for another job that will.

Let’s continue the conversation! Connect with us to explore next-generation employee engagement and HR strategies.

Now available: MorganHR’s comprehensive benefits report! MorganHR takes a look at how total talent and rewards strategies are evolving in light of unprecedented diversity initiatives, COVID-19, shifting demographics, and more. Download the report.

Based on the article below, employers need more effective ways of coaching managers in order to increase company performance. Some may say it is from a lack of coaching skills, and others may say there is no coaching present. Either way, coaching is more important now than ever due to COVID-19. Companies can start by encouraging HR and business leaders to expect daily feedback. This simple request can lead to valuable conversation and constructive criticism. Although most companies are remote, there are several ways to continue to coach; however, it is critical that managers link those skills back to day-to-day work. 

At MorganHR, we implement HR strategies that work. We are team players and coaches who are invested in supplying the tools employers need to succeed. It is especially important through the COVID-19 work transformations that communication is clear, and that we build a foundation remotely to ensure coaching is being translated directly to help with employee relations. MorganHR is equipped to engage with our clients and create more strategic ways of coaching in order to ensure our solution is long-lasting.

Read more about the effect of coaching managers by following the link below:

https://www.hrdive.com/news/teach-managers-to-be-coaches-accountability-obstacle/585674/