robintek

A California case, Combs v. SkyRiver Communications, denied a director of network operations his overtime claim. Under both California and Federal law, a person is employed in an administrative capacity when their primary duties are: 1) The performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management policies with general business operations of the company’s customers; 2) where they customarily and regularly exercise discretionary or independent judgment with respect to matters of significance; and 3) where they perform under only general supervision and do work along specialized or technical lines that require special training, experience, or knowledge.

The phrase “directly related to management policies or general business operations” is interpreted to require that an employee perform work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the business, as distinguished from work on a manufacturing product line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment. In a sense, the employee is working “on” the business as opposed to “in” the business. 29 CFR Section 541.201 states that the phrase “directly related to the management or general business operations”:

“Includes, but is not limited to, work in functional areas such as tax; finance; accounting; budgeting; auditing; insurance; quality control; purchasing; procurement; advertising; marketing; research; safety and health; personnel management; human resources; employee benefits; labor relations; public relations; government relations; computer network, internet and database administration; legal and regulatory compliance; and similar activities.”

Interpretive guidance regarding the phrase “exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance” has been interpreted to mean:

“In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. The term ‘matters of significance’ refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed.”

“The phrase ‘discretion and independent judgment’ must be applied in the light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises. Factors to consider when determining whether an employee exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance include, but are not limited to: whether the employee has authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices; whether the employee carries out major assignments in conducting the operations of the business; whether the employee performs work that affects the business operations to a substantial degree, even if the employee’s assignments are related to operation of a particular segment of the business; whether the employee has authority to commit the employer in matters that have significant financial impact; whether the employee has authority to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures without prior approval; whether the employee has authority to negotiate and bind the company on significant matters; whether the employee provides consultation or expert advice to management; whether the employee is involved in planning long- or short-term business objectives; whether the employee investigates and resolves matters of significance on behalf of management; and whether the employee represents the company in handling complaints, arbitrating disputes or resolving grievances.”

Note that in California the term “primarily engaged in duties” means “more than one-half the employee’s work time.” The Federal standard uses more of a qualitative than a quantitative approach. Read the case here.

According to the DOL’s Fact Sheet on Hours Worked, orientation and meetings for new hires must be paid if they’re held within normal work hours, are mandatory, related to their employment, and generate some work product. Click here for more information.

According to Bureau of Justice statistics, an estimated 1.7 million workers are injured each year in workplace assaults (that’s an average of 33,000 per week). During the 13-year period from 1992 to 2005, there was an average of 807 workplace homicides a year (15 per week).

Workplace violence arises from a variety of circumstances.

Some involve criminals robbing taxicab drivers, convenience stores, or other retail operations; clients or patients attacking providers in healthcare or social services offices; disgruntled workers seeking revenge; or domestic abuse that spills over into the workplace. More recently, the threat of terrorism has loomed over the nation’s workplaces. Yet, as pointed out by the Nation Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), most employers and most employees aren’t aware of the significant threat that on-the-job violence poses.

NIOSH notes a number of barriers to preventing workplace violence: A corporate attitude of denial, a culture of violence, a sense of powerlessness in the workplace, inadequate incentives or disincentives, lack of awareness, poor information, weak communication or training, inadequate resources, failure to report incidents of violence, ineffective follow up, lack of a written policy, lack of teamwork, and more.

Strategies to help prevent workplace violence include:

• Management and worker commitment
• A change in cultural attitudes
• A multi-disciplinary team approach
• A written policy or program
• An effective training program
• An evaluation of the program

NIOSH also discusses environmental, behavioral, and administrative interventions. Learn more about workplace violence and how to prevent it here.

Sometimes we make things so complicated. Performance management is one example. In the old days, we gave people a job description, told them what to do, and graded them annually on a scale from one to five in a number of categories, depending on how well they “performed.” This approach was based on the notion that you can control an employee’s performance — and it doesn’t work anymore! In fact, more than 30 years ago, Dr. Edwards Deming stated, “Performance evaluations are more destructive than beneficial of performance.” So what does work? Here’s a common sense approach to consider. If you think I’ve missed anything, please let me know:

1. Make sure the employee’s skill sets and personality match the task at hand. In the hiring process, we have to use skill tests and character assessments to understand the strengths and weaknesses of any candidate. This avoids jamming round pegs into square holes. Assuming that we’ve created the right “fit,” the process continues from there as the employee develops. Periodic skill testing and character assessments continue to make sense. We can match our training programs to help improve perceived weaknesses or to enhance strengths.
2. Know the plan and have a plan. Peter Drucker stated that management tends to recycle ignorance. The starting point is for management to communicate with specificity the vision, mission, values, and strategic goals of the company and the department. Employees have to know the big picture in order to perform at their best. Unfortunately, this communication generally comes once a year in a speech to the workforce and lacks any precision. As discussed in the HR That Works Training Module on Performance Management, annual goal setting makes no sense in today’s environment. Instead, set goals in writing, make them 30-90 days out, and revisit them for 15 minutes each week.
3. Make sure employees can answer these questions:
   

   a. What are the three most important things you do every day?

   b. How would you know you were doing them well without having to ask or without being told?

Until employees can answer those questions with precision, any performance management evaluation is meaningless.

4. When employees don’t perform, first check the system. Most employee failures are system failures. Nine out of 10 people want to do a good job every day. If an employee isn’t performing, first check to see how management could be causing the problem. Do people lack the necessary skill sets? Are they clear about their job duties? Is your management style demotivating them? Is everyone on the team cooperating?
5. If it’s not the fault of the system, have the employee own the problem. Under the traditional theory of discipline, management gives an oral warning, followed by a written warning, perhaps leave without pay, and then termination. Throughout the process, management owns the problem. If it’s not management’s fault, then the employee should be made to take responsibility. But nobody has a form to do that. If you’re an HR That Works user, consider the Employee Correction form, which places the responsibility squarely on the employee’s shoulders. It makes people acknowledge their deficiencies in writing, what they intend to do about them, and what the consequences should be if they don’t meet their own expectations. We find that when responsibility is placed properly, employees intend to be rougher on themselves than management would be.
6. Consider a performance improvement plan. Finally, once everybody acknowledges their responsibilities, have a plan for moving forward. Depending on the concern, make it from 30 to 90 days in length, but check in with the employee at least every few weeks. If, after that time, they still can’t or don’t want to “get it” then it’s time to liberate them!

Performance management isn’t rocket science. When people are doing things they can do well and enjoy doing well, they don’t need to be motivated. They’ll want to perform. It’s management’s job to place employees in a position where they are capable of, and responsible for, their success.