How Can an Employer Incentivize Social Responsibility?

How Can an Employer Incentivize Social Responsibility?

At an all-company meeting last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company was retooling its employee bonus system to reflect a new set of priorities, focused on addressing the controversies surrounding the social media giant concerning the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation on its platform. In addition to traditional metrics like user growth and product quality, Facebook will reward employees this year based on their success at promoting the social good including combating fake accounts, protecting users’ safety, and making progress on other social issues affected by Facebook and the internet in general.

The decision to reward employees for doing social good reflects a challenge that many companies, particularly large corporations with major public profiles, are facing today. Investors, politicians, the media, and consumers are paying more attention than ever before to the social, environmental, and ethical consequences of what businesses do. And Facebook is not alone in this desire, for example, Chevron recently announced that it would tie executive compensation to reductions in the energy corporation’s greenhouse gas emissions. This dynamic, in turn, puts more pressure on corporate leaders to deliver sustainability and social responsibility as well as growth.

For Facebook, awarding bonuses to employees for meeting social responsibility goals will inevitably test the company’s ability to live up to two truisms: “actions speak louder than words,” and “what gets measured gets done.” To the first point, companies can articulate all the values they want, but at the end of the quarter or fiscal year, what matters is whether the organization actually lived up to those values in its day-to-day business practices. We’ve seen companies attempt to project an image of social responsibility, only to get called out for not really reflecting that image in their work. The impact of Facebook’s new policy will take time to fully materialize, but when it pays out bonuses for 2019, investors and reporters will be curious to see whether they have really rewarded the kind of choices they say they intend to, and whether those rewards reflect a real change.

As to the second point, Facebook has set itself an ambitious goal of identifying quantifiable metrics by which to determine progress against its goals of social good. Facebook has acknowledged that there is no easy or obvious formula for doing this, but they are looking at targets like number of fake accounts shut down daily or improvements to safety and security as possible metrics. Being a data-driven company, Facebook will likely get more granular and detailed about how it defines success, especially with both the media and governments paying closer and closer attention.

Here are four things that any company considering a similar change should be ready to do to make it more likely that an incentive program like this will be successful:

Read more

Flexibility for All: New Lessons From PwC’s Experience

Flexibility for All: New Lessons From PwC’s Experience

Today’s digital work environment has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for working outside the traditional model of 9-to-5, Monday through Friday, chained to your desk. While some jobs will always require employees to be in a certain place at a certain time, communications technology now makes flexibility possible for most knowledge workers in terms of where, when, and how they get their work done, at least some of the time. Flexible work is attractive to many employees, but it’s more than just a perk: Many organizations are discovering that it can help drive important business goals such as engagement, retention, productivity, and inclusion. To that last point, flexibility is now seen as a valuable tool for helping working parents and caregivers manage their home obligations without sacrificing professional growth and career progress.

One company that has had a positive experience with flexibility is PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which over the past ten years has evolved a culture of “everyday flexibility” that makes flexible work available to all employees, regardless of their role or circumstances. Anne Donovan, U.S. People Experience Leader at PwC, recently outlined what the company learned in this process at the Harvard Business Review. One key lesson, she writes, is to “be ‘flexible’ when creating a flexibility culture,” rather than implementing a rigid, formal policy:

Flexibility for a caregiver might mean being able to leave work early to take an elderly parent to a doctor’s appointment. For a parent, it might mean taking a midday run, so evenings can be spent with their children. And for others, it could simply be taking an hour in the afternoon to go to a yoga class and recharge. When we look at flexibility this way, it’s easy to see why formal rules actually hinder adoption and progress. It’s impossible to have a one-size-fits-all approach for flexibility. We let our teams figure out what works best for them, as long as they deliver excellent work, on time. The rest is all fair game.

Read more

What’s Your Game Plan for Super Bowl Monday?

What’s Your Game Plan for Super Bowl Monday?

This Sunday is the Super Bowl, the most-watched sporting event in the US. For football fans, that often means getting together with friends to watch the game and celebrate or commiserate afterward, depending on whether your team won or lost. For employers, on the other hand, it means a productivity slump the next day, as employees call in “sick” Monday morning or show up to work late, underslept, and/or hungover.

This year, some 17.2 million Americans might miss work the day after the big game, according to the “Super Bowl Fever Survey” commissioned by The Workforce Institute at Kronos Incorporated and conducted by The Harris Poll. The institute notes that this is the largest estimated number of absentees since the survey began in 2005, surpassing the 16.5 million estimated in 2016. The annual survey was conducted last month among 1,107 employed adults in the US aged 18 and older, and calculates its estimate based on the percentage of respondents who said they would likely stay home (11 percent) multiplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent count of the US workforce (156.9 million people).

From the same survey data, the institute estimates that 7.8 million Americans will be taking a pre-approved day off on Monday, while 4.7 million will take a last-minute sick day and another 22 million will either go into work late or work remotely from home. Senior-level employees and executives were more likely than junior and mid-level employees to say they would probably not work their normal hours on Monday.

Employees and employers alike know that Monday is the biggest “sick day” of the year, and 62 percent of senior-level/executive leaders surveyed by the institute said they found it funny when co-workers call out sick the day after the Super Bowl when they suspect they’re not actually sick. In a separate survey from the staffing firm OfficeTeam, however, 42 percent of senior managers said they considered these unplanned absences the most distracting or annoying employee behavior when it comes to major sporting events — more than any other habit. The OfficeTeam survey also found that 54 percent of professionals know someone who’s called in sick or made an excuse for skipping work following a major sporting event.

Read more

Harvard Study: 3 in 4 US Workers Say Caregiving Responsibilities Affect Their Productivity

Harvard Study: 3 in 4 US Workers Say Caregiving Responsibilities Affect Their Productivity

In recent years, business leaders have become increasingly aware of the caregiving burdens affecting their employees’ lives and, by extension, their organizations. At the same time millennials, who make up the largest generational cohort in the workforce, are settling down and starting families, the baby boomer generation is aging and imposing additional elder care responsibilities on their gen-X and millennial children. In recognition of this burden, many progressive organizations have expanded their leave and flexibility offerings for employees with family caregiving responsibilities, but not all employees enjoy these benefits, particularly in the US, where there is no statutory parental leave entitlement.

A major new report from Harvard Business School underscores the significant toll this caregiving burden places on employees’ productivity, which employers may be underestimating. In their report, The Caring Company, Harvard Business School professor Joseph Fuller and Manjari Raman, program director of the school’s Young American Leaders Program, surveyed 1,500 employees and 300 HR leaders to gauge the impact of caregiving responsibilities on workers’ performance, the extent to which employers recognize this effect, the benefits employers are offering to help employees manage these obligations, and how these benefits are being used.

Some of the report’s key findings include:

  • 80 percent of employees with caregiving responsibilities said caregiving affected their productivity, but only 24 percent of employers thought caregiving influenced performance, and 52 percent of employers don’t measure the extent of their employees’ caregiving burdens. Employers recognize, however, that work issues such as unplanned absences, late arrivals and early departures from work — which often arise as a result of caregiving obligations — negatively affect employees’ career progression.
  • 32 percent of all employees said they had voluntarily left a job during their career due to caregiving responsibilities. The impact is particularly acute among millennial employees: 50 percent of employees aged 26-35 and 27 percent of employees aged 18-25 said they had already left a job due to caregiving responsibilities.
  • Among those who had left a job, 57 percent said they had done so to take care of a newborn or adopted child, 49 percent to care for a sick child, 43 percent to manage a child’s needs, 32 percent to take care of an elder family member, and nearly 25 percent left to take care of an ill or disabled family member. The most common reasons they gave for leaving their jobs were that they could not find or afford paid help, or because they were unable to meet their work responsibilities and provide care at the same time.

Read more

Flu Season Poised to Cost US Employers Billions Again This Year

Flu Season Poised to Cost US Employers Billions Again This Year

The flu season is upon us in the northern hemisphere, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting this week that the annual spike in influenza cases was just starting (later than usual) and that this year’s flu appeared to be hitting children particularly hard. While this year may not be as bad as last year, when the annual flu vaccine was only about 30 percent effective against the highly virulent H3N2 strain, which put large numbers of Americans in the hospital, the flu is a perennial winter health hazard, particularly in the close confines of a shared workspace. Challenger, Gray & Christmas estimates that this year’s flu could cost US employers over $17 billion in lost productivity. That’s not as much as the $21 billion it estimated for last year, but still would represent a meaningful dent in the economy:

Last year’s flu season sickened nearly 49 million people, 32.5 million of whom were over the age of 25, according to the CDC’s age breakdown of flu infections for the 2017-18 season. Last season was the worst since 2009, when that year’s H1N1 strain sickened an estimated 60.8 million people, with more than 40 million of those affected over the age of 18.

Challenger predicts 20 million workers could take four eight-hour days away from work due to the flu. Using the current employment-population ratio of 60.6 percent, and the average hourly wage of $27.48, the cost to employers could hit $17,587,200,000 over the course of the season.

Read more

UK Unveils Labor Reform Package Based on Taylor Review Recommendations

UK Unveils Labor Reform Package Based on Taylor Review Recommendations

The UK on Monday enacted a sweeping series of reforms to its labor laws, raising fines on employers for deliberately harming their workers and obliging them to give employees details of their legal rights from their first day on the job, among other changes. Based on the findings issued last year by the Independent Review of Employment Practices in the Modern Economy, led by Matthew Taylor, a former advisor to Tony Blair, the reforms are intended to strengthen the rights of agency workers and those participating in the gig economy, as well as to step up enforcement of existing labor protections. According to Personnel Today, the new legislation will:

  • repeal the Swedish derogation, which allows organisations to pay agency workers on cheaper rates than permanent staff;
  • extend the right to a written statement of rights from a person’s first day in their job to workers, going further to confirm their eligibility for sick leave and pay, as well as other types of paid leave including maternity, paternity and shared parental leave;
  • quadrupling the maximum fines handed out at employment tribunals to employers that have shown malice, spite or gross oversight from £5,000 to £20,000;
  • extending the holiday pay reference period from 12 to 52 weeks to ensure that those in seasonal roles are able to take the time off they are entitled to; and
  • lowering the threshold required for a request to set up information and consultation arrangements from 10% of employees to 2%.

In a report called the “Good Work Plan,” the government also pledged to enact further legislation so that employment classification tests “reflect the reality of the modern working relationships.” The Taylor Review had recommended that the employment status currently known as “worker” be renamed “dependent contractor” and that workers in this category be entitled to employment protections like the minimum wage, sick leave, and holiday pay. It also recommended enacting legislation to clarify the legal tests for different employment classifications, rather than relying on case law as the UK currently does.

The government’s reform package did not, however, ban the controversial practice of zero-hour contracts. Taylor had concluded that abolishing these contracts would do more harm than good, though his review also recommended that workers in zero-hour arrangements be entitled to request guaranteed hours after working for their employer for 12 months. The government of Ireland, in contrast, has said it plans to end most zero-hour contracts with a bill expected to pass the legislature in the spring. Whitehall’s decision not to ban zero-hour contracts drew criticism from unions, the Guardian reported on Sunday, with Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O’Grady saying the government had missed an opportunity to strengthen the rights of a vulnerable segment of the workforce:

Read more

The Talent Ramifications of the Brexit Deal (or No Deal)

The Talent Ramifications of the Brexit Deal (or No Deal)

The UK’s planned exit from the European Union is fast approaching, and a new deal over the terms of that exit faces an uncertain future in the UK parliament. Whatever happens, there will be talent implications for employers and HR leaders in the UK and Europe. Below is our broad look at the background of the process and terms of the latest proposed deal, and what the potential consequences could be — viewing several key issues through the lens of HR, including immigration, employment law, and the risks of a no-deal Brexit.

Fast Facts

  • The UK will formally exit the European Union on March 29, 2019, marking the deadline for UK and EU negotiators to reach a deal on an orderly Brexit transition. UK Prime Minister Theresa May has reached a draft agreement with the EU that would provide for a 21-month transition period, after which the UK would be able to control immigration from the EU, while backstop measures would allow the UK to remain in the EU customs union and enable a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if a final trade deal is not reached by December 2020. The transition period could be extended once, into 2022, if the UK and EU agree to do so.
  • A scheduled Parliament vote on the deal with the EU was delayed on December 10 after the May government realized the agreement would most likely be rejected. May then survived a confidence vote two days later, and plans to continue lobbying for the deal, which will not be scheduled for another vote in Parliament until sometime in January.
  • May’s deal, as drafted, would preserve the free movement of labor between the UK and other EU countries for the duration of the transition period, while any EU citizens living in the UK before the end of that period would have a right to stay, but would have to apply for residency documentation. Afterward, EU citizens would no longer have special privileges in immigrating to the UK. May has proposed a skills-based system for admitting immigrants after Brexit, but some business leaders and the National Health Service fear this system will leave them short-staffed in roles that would not qualify as high-skill under May’s scheme but for which native talent is in short supply.
  • The UK government has pledged to uphold employment laws based on EU regulations after Brexit, but some of these laws may be partly amended to be more flexible for employers or to reduce their liabilities. Unions, however, fear that these protections may be weakened substantially.
  • If there is no deal by the March 29 deadline, the UK will face a “messy” exit from the EU—likely causing severe economic disruptions. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK would revert to trading with Europe under World Trade Organization guidelines, reintroducing customs and border controls. A no-deal Brexit can be expected to hurt the pound and cause instability in the British financial sector, which could spread to continental Europe and the rest of the world.
  • In a no-deal scenario, the government has promised that EU citizens’ immigration status would not change before 2021, but it remains unclear what employers will have to do to ensure that their European employees are able to continue living and working in the UK. Many businesses have put contingency plans into action to protect against the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, but most HR managers in the UK are underprepared for this scenario. In any case, Brexit is expected to result in a labor supply shock and make it more challenging for UK employers to fill job vacancies.

Background

On June 23, 2016, citizens of the UK narrowly voted to withdraw their country from the European Union. The “Brexit” referendum sent a shockwave through the British, European, and global economies, and prompted concern and uncertainty at many organizations in the UK and abroad.

Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, who came to power shortly after the referendum in 2016, has worked to cut a deal with Brussels that preserves the UK’s strong trade ties with the EU, but has also stressed that no deal is better than a bad deal as far as her government is concerned. UK and EU negotiators deadlocked over several key points where London and Brussels are at cross-purposes, and uncertainty over whether and how these obstacles will be overcome has been a major source of anxiety for UK businesses over the past two years.

Chief among these issues are immigration and the free movement of people between the UK and the rest of the EU. May has stressed the need for the UK to “take back control” of its borders, even if it meant losing access to the EU’s single market. Free movement of people is one of the “four freedoms” underpinning that single market; the UK wants to preserve free movement of goods, services, and capital, while regaining the right to restrict immigration from the EU. For its part, Brussels has resisted creating new forms of special treatment for the UK that would make Brexit easier, partly to discourage other EU countries from pursuing exits of their own. Another, related area of disagreement is the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which forms the UK’s only land border with another EU country. Many businesses on the island of Ireland have supply chains that cross that border every day and employees living on both sides of it; creating a hard border with customs and immigration controls would be costly and complicated for these organizations.

The deadline for reaching an agreement is March 29, 2019. If no agreement is reached, the UK will “crash out” of the EU and trade with the bloc under World Trade Organization guidelines. May announced on November 25 that her Brexit negotiators and their counterparts in Brussels had reached a draft agreement that would solve some of these challenges.

A vote on the deal in the UK Parliament had been scheduled for December 11, but May called it off one day before when it was clear that the deal was going to be rejected. Many MPs opposed the agreement, claiming the proposed Brexit is too hard or not hard enough, or because they believe the country should hold another referendum on the question before proceeding.

Prime Minister May said on December 10 that she would ask the EU for new “reassurances” on the deal, and in particular the backstop plan for the Northern Ireland border, which many MPs said they opposed. The EU has maintained they will not renegotiate the agreement, however. May’s government offered no specific timeline as to when there would be another scheduled vote in Parliament on this or any revised deal — but has said it will not happen until January. There is also a January 21 deadline to present the deal to Parliament. May survived a confidence v

Here is a broad outline of what might happen next and the key issues HR leaders need to understand:

Read more