Stop 'Slacker Mindset'; Create Star Performers!

Slackers are not born, they are made. There is a societal bias that gears culture towards natural ability instead of hard work. Employers need to know the psychology of a slacker in order to identify them and in the end reform the slackers into star performers.

Those who have lived their whole life rewarded exclusively for their natural intelligence have a greater likelihood of being a slacker because they give up too quickly when things get hard. Many believe speed goes hand in hand with ability, if you truly excel at something you should not have to work hard at it. This assertion is far from reality, though managers tend to promote the idea by praising those who achieve effortlessly. The real truth is companies that reward natural intelligence and talents more than commitment and loyalty actually help breed slackers.

When talent alone is allowed to be king, even the most talented start to feel vulnerable, forcing the talented to resort to desperate measures in order to still look good. They will steer clear of tackling more challenging tasks in fear that it will show weakness. In the end, the ‘King Talent’ culture promotes lying and employees covering up mistakes, not fixing them.

Rewards should be based on passion, dedication, performance improvement, creative problem solving and hard work over natural talents. Managers need to focus more on praising the hard workers over the ‘ace’ worker who does the same thing well over and over.

Slackers become masters at managing expectations. By managing what a supervisor is expecting, they can keep up the impression a task takes longer and/or create red tape where none exists.

Knowledge based work and technology have only made this an easier feat to mask. With the technological ability to get work done without a higher level of effort employees can disguise slackerhood with greater ease. Managers must always adjust expectations with updated technology.

Companies should connect effort and performance to a valued reward; such as time off, incentive pay or stretch assignment. Poor job fit will create boredom and frustration causing the employee to withdrawal or give up most of the time.

There are two big factors that have a negative impact on employee productivity. The first is poor management and the second is no longer being motivated by the work. Human nature is to avoid frustration and replace it with tasks that are more rewarding to the person, not the organization.

It is up to managers to keep the excitement and make sure praise is being placed where it is truly deserved. Celebrate hard work and dedication and you will be well on your way to a Slacker-Free workplace.

Could Your Unpaid Interns Lead to Costly Risks?

Difficult economies can create the desire to save on labor costs. One of the solutions some companies are using is unpaid internships. This can be an appealing idea for those organizations struggling to afford employees to keep up with their demand. However, before starting an unpaid internship program a company needs to ask, is the reward worth the risk?

Unpaid interns must meet specific requirements in order to avoid governmental challenges. Training of the interns is the key to protecting the programs. A company can increase the likelihood of a ‘training’ status if the interns gains skills that can be used in multiple settings, not just the specific company. The intern should be allowed to observe aspects of employer’s day-to-day operations, such as job shadowing. There should not be a need for the intern to perform critical services the entire time on the job.

An unpaid intern must never be a supervisor of another employee and/or intern. If an unpaid internship is properly done, it should actually be a drain on employers due to education and training time, since one is not getting production out of it.

There are six standards set of by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division to determine if the intern is a ‘trainee’ or an ‘employee’ with compliance to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

1) The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or educational instruction.
2) The training is for the benefit of the trainee.
3) The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation.
4) The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded.
5) The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.
6) The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

All of the above must be met in order to have ‘trainee’ status which would allow for an unpaid intern.

'Exempt' from Overtime Does Not Mean Exempt from Accountability

Have you ever had an employee who thought being ‘exempt’ from overtime meant they could come and go as they pleased, working as much or as little as they wanted?

It is tempting to switch that employee to an hourly compensation plan, but try and restrain. This solution can cause more problems than it would solve, including the loss of exempt status.

First and foremost, for an employee to be considered 'exempt from overtime pay' the position must meet a job duties and salary basis test. According to the U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet No. 17G, “Being paid on a ‘salary basis’ means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation each pay period on a weekly, or less frequently, basis. The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of variations in the quality or quantity of the employee’s work.”

Employers do have the right to issue various ‘disciplinary actions’ such as unpaid suspensions for a violation of serious workplace misconduct, however the U. S. Department of Labor maintains this must not be for performance or attendance issues.

Do not fear there are choices for employers. First, does the job absolutely demand that it take place on a rigid timetable? If not, giving some flexible arrangements could be a great way to increase desired productivity while raising morale.

Make a habit of reviewing company policies. Do the established practices allow for some flex scheduling? Telecommuting can be an appealing option for employees with commuting problems.

Always check to see if your employees have a pre-arranged religious or Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations. That may help to explain some scheduling conflicts.

Most importantly, an ‘exempt’ status does not mean the employee is exempt from being held accountable. Your company policies apply to all employees no matter the status.

Legislative Update- Discrimination Law Ruling

The United States Supreme Court came to a ruling on March 1, 2011, which declared an employer can be liable for the discriminatory motives of a supervisor who influences but does not make the ultimate employment decision.

The high court toughened the standard by which an employer may be held liable for discrimination based on a subordinate supervisor’s discriminatory view even if the ultimate decision maker is admittedly unbiased.

Justice Scalia delivered the decision that “if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.” Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor also joined the decision.

The Court decided to decline a blanket rule immunizing an employer who performs an independent investigation of the conduct that led to the adverse employment action. However, they gave a very limited exception to liability where subordinate bias is at play.

This decision creates a new layer of liability for employers in USERRA and other type of discriminatory claims. The employer may be liable for discrimination if the biased motives of a supervisor caused a chain of events that led to the adverse employment action, even if it was not from the ultimate decision maker.

Employers must take a closer look at an employee’s prior conduct and corrective action issued before an adverse employment action is taken. The company should create an independent investigation to confirm there is legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons before an adverse employment action is taken.

Staub v. Proctor Hospital
Vincent Staub was in the Army Reserves and worked at Proctor Hospital as an angiography technologist. His two superiors Michael Korenchuk and Janice Mulally began to set up timing obstacles that would conflict with his Army Reserve responsibilities and punish him for not meeting them.

Shortly after Staub received his order to report for “solider readiness processing”, a precursor to active deployment, Mulally gave him a written warning for disregarding his job duties. Staub was instructed to report when he had completed his angiographic duties and did not have any patients and was to remain in the general diagnostic area unless he told Korenchuk or Mulally where he was going and why.

A few months later, Staub was finished with his work and tried to go to lunch. He was unable to find Korenchuk in his office so he left a voicemail message. When Staub returned 30 minutes later, Korenchuk escorted him to the Vice President of Human Resources, Linda Buck, where she proceeded to terminate him.

Prior to deciding to terminate Staub, Buck reviewed his personnel file. She also relied on input from Korenchuk but the ultimate decision was hers. Staub’s military involvement played no role in Buck’s decision.