The Consultant's Desk

The Consultant's Desk
Poring over the details on your behalf

Friday, November 10, 2017

SHRM Requirements

There are times when it's necessary to complete a proposal either for work or to be a presenter. In the talent management industry, there is an organization called Society for Human Resources Management, affectionately spoken of by its acronym, SHRM, and pronounced as "Sherm" (like the human companion for Mr. Peabody; but I digress).

SHRM sets standards for maintaining their certification of knowledge and expertise. Likewise, they set forth activities that show focused effort in developing meaningful, insightful content delivered by presenters. It's worthwhile to be acquainted with those standards. It helps in developing an accurate picture of the competency that can be presented. It's extremely useful in determining whether a presenter is qualified. This is in addition to their body of work either in writing or history of presenting and speaking.

Certification examiners and education providers can be found in many places. Not all are SHRM associations. In fact, there are some companies that are in the business of providing that education. They're global.

Recertification is focused on three categories of maintaining professional excellence:

  • Advance Your Education
  • Advance Your Organization
  • Advance Your Profession

These areas are discussed in the SHRM BoCK (Body of Competency and Knowledge).

There are different types of presentations. For example, the most strenuous is the keynote. That's a solo performance. The speaker is expected to leave the audience inspired and motivated. There are other solo performances such as workshops and seminars. Those are focused on educating the audience. Some are also done by a panel or shared presentation. When it's a shared situation, even more skill is required because there needs to be coordination among the panelists. Strategically speaking, that can be very advantageous. It can also test one's EQ levels and abilities to negotiate. Focus on the outcome is the measure of excellence.

The point is these standards are useful both from the perspective of someone seeking a speaker or a trainer as well as for the one who is submitting a proposal and wants their content to qualify for SHRM credits (whether for certification, continuing education, or for recertification). They're also a useful reference point when interviewing and hiring.

What about knowledge and experience gained from being deep in the trenches and emerging with successful outcomes? What about sharing that knowledge and the strategies that gave rise to them? At the moment, I can't find that information. Needless to say, some awareness comes not from reading the book or sitting in the class but from actual execution and creativity with regard to developing solutions that fit the situation. Perhaps it also depends on how deep and wide the "trail of blood" is in getting there. I'll leave those answers to some of the ones who know more about applying credits from work (and not workplace) experience.

Meanwhile, it's wise to know what the standards are. It's prudent to make the effort to reach and even surpass those standards, no matter which industry is the focus. There's always a standard for excellence.

Resources:

Sponsored Links:

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

A VITAL Organization

There are times when we need to recite the meaning of the associations we've developed. After some time passes, we forget the fervor that went into striving to earn the distinctions those associations merit and symbolize. The initials become tantamount to year-old tattoos. We're no longer aware that they're even there; they're simply part of who we are.

An employer needs to know (or is that "wants" to know) what the initials "C.A.C." mean. Well, if you look up the organization that issues that certification, you'll find it is issued by the California Staffing Professionals Association (CSP), the California complement of the American Staffing Association (ASA).

Check the CSP home page and you'll discover they bill themselves as a "VITAL" organization. But all of those letters are capitalized. That means "VITAL" is an acronym. What the letters stand for are concepts that are representative of what the organization is and qualities it offers.

Visionary

Integrity

Training

Advocacy

Leadership


There are a number of certifications that are available through evaluative testing performed by both the national as well as the state-level organizations. Successful performance will earn the applicant a particular designation to represent their knowledge and expertise. The ASA lists the types of certifications available through them. The CSP (Certified Staffing Professional) used to be the initials for the credential earned through the CSP organization. That state designation changed its name circa 2000 and became known as CAC or California Accredited Consultant. It still represents the same accomplishments. The rigors are limited to California laws instead of state as well as federal laws. It still requires knowledge of ethical practices.

The CSP has a continuing education requirement; the CAC does not. (Please, don't ask me why.) In a way, the lack of continuing education requirement is a bit disappointing. But when you consider that one who is passionate about their profession will be taking as many steps as possible to remain abreast of industry practices and knowledge, it makes sense that the requirement no longer exists. Additionally, one who is actively practicing will in all likelihood also be attending chapter meetings and thereby staying up to date on innovations through the educational section of each meeting.

You may be wondering about the significance of certifications and credentials. (Maybe you're not.) Unearthing the language that provides the official CSP explanation of their CAC brought me to a site called Designation Check. They have a page, Credentials Explained, where the various types of credentials are explained, whether there are any differences between a "designation" and a "certification", and more. It's useful to gain an understanding and appreciation of the document (or the initials) that represents the distinction the person holds. It appears Designation Check's specialty is in the area of finance. The information they provide is reliable with regard to certifications for any industry. Certification is a standard practice for any profession.

Back to being a VITAL organization. Back to an examination of whether you've found a consultant. Some have dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s. They've earned their credential through a valid organization that maintains their standards over time. NOLO tells us about other aspects of starting a consulting business in California. One of them is having a license, which can be a simple as obtaining a fictitious business name (a "dba") through the county where the business is being conducted. It's good for five years. It's required because it helps the public realize it is a business they're dealing with or a group of owners who are operating under a particularly formulated name; it isn't the name of an individual. Also, the dba basically tells the (local) government that this is a business and it may pursue and defend its rights in a court of law under the registered name of the business. Otherwise, the individual doing business under that name has no standing. (Further explanation is required but in another writing.) Once the registration is renewed, so is the standing. The legitimacy of the business is otherwise not affected.

Likewise, if the certifying organization has stopped requiring continuing education and proof of it, the prudent practitioner will continue to enhance their knowledge through various alternative (but reliable) channels and keep track of those "credits". They will continue to be vital, especially if they've needed to step away from things for one reason or another and later decide to re-enter the field.

As with any other profession when you're evaluating the consultant, you'll want to do some screening. Pay attention to what they've been doing in lateral areas. Should you decide to hire them, you'll start them on what should be manageable and then increase the difficulty level as your relationship evolves and your organization can become VITAL because of the quality input you've chosen.

Resources:
Sponsored Links:

Thursday, October 26, 2017

More Workplace Abuse Resources

It's with great dismay that a particular page needs to be closed. The reason for the reluctance is because the content is so useful (and I need the laptop resources). The site is called "When An Abuser Goes to Work" and is authored by Patricia G. Barnes, J.D. Patricia also focuses on age discrimination at Age Discrimination in Employment. Unlike Chai Feldblum, Patricia has not been an EEOC Commissioner. But she has been a judge and is a lawyer. Their advocacy is Title VII related but on specific aspects of enforcement of rights for particular constituents.

When you visit her LinkedIn profile, you'll notice that Chai has a strong leaning toward supporting gay and lesbian rights. She is a contributor to a book title on religion and same-sex marriage. She also keeps her followers up to date on the outcome of EEOC age discrimination cases (that were not under her purview).

Patricia has written on a wide swath of Title VII issues, in addition to workplace abuses. Yes, it is entirely possible to visit her blog to learn what she's published. But I'd like to preserve at least some of those titles here (until I can move them to my website's Library) where we'll have a quick reference to her insights on the subjects.

Pat Barnes' list of aggressive behaviors in the workplace is not only enlightening, it's what's been considered offensive and abusive over time. Failing to respond to phone calls and messages is the classic. Recruiters (both retained and staffing industry) use the excuse that they're too busy. Too busy to get someone (a motivated worker) employed? No one comes up with a spoken excuse for interrupting. However, the underlying message is what the person has to say isn't important. The other unspoken message is the one doing the interrupting is entitled to do so; they are privileged.

There are times when an interruption is a kind gesture. The train of thought is meandering or drifting into whining. The speaker needs to get refocused. Sometimes they may be exhibiting distress and needs to regather their thoughts. Many times, unfortunately, none of those reasons are the case. There was no kindness intended. The one doing the interrupting is simply showing they have very little regard for the one who was speaking.

There are a lot of behaviors that demonstrate abuse in the workplace. Perhaps taking in what these two authors have to say on the subject will help make us more aware and more inclined to discourage the behavior.

Resources:
Sponsored Links:

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Establishing a Prima Facie Case

Here it is. October, the Awareness Month. Breast Cancer, Non-visible Disabilities, Domestic Violence all earn some recognition in this month. Although all three deserve recognition, Domestic Violence is the one I support. As time passes, I wince at the fact that those with disabilities, especially non-visible disabilities are overlooked in many of the conversations about preparedness, equality, inclusion, and accommodation. Unfortunately, the population with all manner of disabilities keeps growing. Perhaps part of that growth is caused by one of the other members of this month's trio, also known as "abuse."

It was because I was reviewing some old contentthat discusses the essentials of making a case (the guidelines) that I discovered one of the links was stale and needs to be updated. The link is contained in an article about abuse in the workplace and the necessity to establish a prima facie case in order for the case to prevail. In that article, it was noted that "establishing that an abusive condition exists in the workplace, it's necessary to make certain you have the elements. The elements of this are not identical for every situation." Hmmm. Reference.com has removed the page that describes those elements. Perhaps the reason for the removal is because the basis is different and depends on the situation to be proved.

It would be helpful to have a list of the typical instances when a workplace prima facie case needs to be established. First, however, let us define what the term "prima facie" means. And because I have several other unrelated projects running with the same deadline, I'm going to be sloppy today. No discussion of the issues. Instead, the links to more information are provided in this writing.

Reference.com Items

First, there's the definition of the term. "Prima facie" is a Latin term that means "on its face" or "at first glance." In court, a litigant makes a prima facie case by presenting evidence that discrimination occurred.

Title VII Scenarios

What's a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination Under Title VII The burden of proof is first the employee's responsibility to establish:

The elements of a prima facie discrimination case are:
  • The employee is in a protected class (based on race, gender, and so on).
  • The employee was qualified for the position. For example, an applicant who wasn't hired would have to show that he met the requirements for the job; an employee who was fired would have to show that she was performing the job adequately and meeting the employer's expectations.
  • The employee was rejected for the position -- in other words, the applicants was not hired, or the employee was not promoted or was fired.
  • An employee outside of the protected class was selected for the position, or the employer continued to look for candidates. For example, an employee who claims she was not promoted because she was a women could show that a man was promoted instead, or that the company continued to look for internal candidates after rejecting her.

The responsibility then shifts to the employer to present evidence that discrimination was not the case, that there was equity.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Making a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination Under the ADA explains that under ADA, things shift. The rules are based on local court standards but the prima facie case essentials are basic.

Generally speaking, an employee must present evidence of three facts to bring a prima facie case:

  • The employee had a disability, had a history of disability, or was perceived by the employer as having a disability. The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. For more information on what qualifies as a disability under the ADA, see What Is a Disability Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
  • The employee was qualified for the position and able to perform its essential functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation. Employers are not required to hire or retain employees who can't do the job; only qualified employees are protected from discrimination under the ADA. To learn about qualifications and essential functions, see Essential Job Functions and the ADA.
  • The circumstances suggest that the employee was subjected to a negative job action based on disability.

For the case to survive, the disability needs to be recognized as a legitimate one of those currently recognized as physical or mental, as well as what is considered a substantial limitation. You will want to also consider what is deemed a major life activity. Also taken into consideration is whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the job. I recently talked about amount and length of experience in determining whether a person is actually qualified. Workers should pay close attention to this distinction of the Act, whether it relates to age, disability, or gender. It will have a bearing on whether the negative action was justified. How well the candidate can establish that they meet the criteria for being qualified is their responsibility if they want to be hired.

Hostile Work Environment - Race

When it comes to hostile work environment, based on race, there are tricky questions that need to be satisfactorily answered in order to bring a cause of action. The Gregory Hall law firm tells us about the five elements of the prima facie case:

  • the plaintiff was a member of a protected class;
  • the plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome harassment;
  • the harassment was race-based;
  • the harassment unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance by creating an environment that was intimidating, hostile, or offensive; and
  • the employer was liable for the harassing conduct.

The reason this gets tricky is because, as pointed out by Mr. Hall, there are phrases that need to be carefully examined in order to establish the case. The phrases and terms are things such as "substantially interfered" with performing the work. There is also being able to establish the "totality of the circumstances" as well as whether the employer knew or should have known and failed to take prompt remedial action. (Case law relating to these concepts is provided in his article.)

It is worth noting that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Comment that considered race and sexual harassment and said, ". . . the Committee does not discern any conceptual difference between harassment because of sex and harassment because of race or any other protected status. Accordingly, the following instructions are applicable to harassment based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin."

As to remedies for racial discrimination, it's worth spending some time considering what LegalMatch has to say. As they discuss the last element to be proved, it is significant that the employer rejected one candidate but continued seeking a person to hire who has the same qualifications as the one who was rejected. LegalMatch lists the elements as:

In order to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, courts will generally require proof that:

The plaintiff was a member of a “protected group” The plaintiff was qualified in all respects for the job they sought The plaintiff was rejected in spite of being fully qualified After the rejection, the employer continued seeking for applicants with the plaintiff’s qualifications

Emphasis supplied

Although these items discuss workplace harassment and discrimination, it's prudent to consider how these standards apply to places that are nonprofit, spiritual, and fraternal organizations. In other words, are those types of organizations free to use practices that are ordinarily violations of civil rights?

Sexual Harassment

And then there's the matter of sexual harassment. Wiggins Law tells us there are four elements involved in a sexual harassment case. The situation is because of the plaintiff’s gender, must be severe or pervasive, and must be unwelcome are the first elements of a sexual harassment claim. Next, the behavior is severe or pervasive. According to Wiggins' analysis, "Courts apply the phrase 'hostile environment' to lawsuits assessing behavior that has constructively changed the complainant’s working conditions." Please be aware that there is a reason why courts placed the severe or pervasive requirement on these cases. To leave the matter open to any and all conduct would be to stifle the occasional teasing and camaraderie that's intended to build an atmosphere of congeniality and support. So, "the “severe or pervasive” requirement is meant to 'filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing,' limiting actionable claims to encompass only 'extreme' conduct."

The third element of a sexual harassment case relates to the fact that the conduct is unwelcome. However, the fourth element has been modified as time has passed. No longer is the requirement of showing quid pro quo a viable element for establishing employer liability. The "who" of the conduct and vicarious liability are what do come into question. In this regard, Wiggins tells us, "liability depends upon who committed the harassment, whether the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action, and the employer’s response to the harassment."

Race as Well as Sex

A 1984 Harvard Business Review article takes a close look at two different instances of discrimination and hostile workplace. The courts and EEOC draw out distinctions that are worth noting with regard to humor compared with harassment.

There was no racial harassment in the oil rig case because race was not the underlying factor. The abuse was meted out without regard to an individual's race. Everyone was the target of the abuse but management did nothing to reverse or stop the practices. Most instructive is their conclusions about where the fun stops. Hazing is discussed.

How does harassment differ from hazing? Hazing is a ritual engaged in to determine whether new employees are trustworthy and able to stand up under stress and uncertainty. Employees who withstand the debasing experience receive “membership” in the work group as their reward. Hazing is usually carried out on an “equal opportunity” basis with sparing of few, if any, employees.

And then it is distinguished from harassment, which the author tells us, ". . . is more invidious. It involves singling out a person with the intention of discouraging the person’s company or continued employment, or of creating an unpleasant or hostile environment."

What We've Discovered

We should come away from this examination of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination is that there are different elements to each type of violation (which was stated at the beginning of this adventure). More importantly, management should not idly stand by and allow the violations to continue unabated - for whatever reason. Failure to do so will result in the company being liable and subject to fines.

But the critical step is for the plaintiff to adequately establish the required elements of their case. The other critical step is for the potential plaintiff to not allow the violations to continue. They should be addressed in an affirmative manner. There are many options for handling this before resorting to litigation.

Resources:

Sponsored Links:

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

The Hiring Process

Doing a search for talent involves a timeline with some conflicting factors. It also involves a process, generally known as a recruitment process. What's desired is to hire the best talent available. That takes time in order to find them, evaluate their fit for the culture, determine whether their skills and abilities match the client's needs, and then find a way to induce them to consider the opportunity.

That's just the up-front work. There's still the factor of arranging the interviews and actually having them. And then there are the other phases.

Meanwhile, the hiring clock is ticking. Although the candidate seems to be passive, that may not be the case. There may be other inducements extended to them that the candidate is keeping private. Depending on where they are in the process of evaluating those other inducements, the one who is your prime goal may get snatched up by a competitor or simply by some other company. A great example of such a scenario was recently shared on LinkedIn as a recruiter informed a client that their desired candidate was no longer available - three weeks after the interview.

The economy is no longer a soft cushion where people have a huge luxury of time. There are obligations that require attention. There may be changes in conditions that require adjustments and change of employment situation. There are many factors in addition to someone else was able to pull their act together in a more timely manner and extend the offer.

Candidates don't want to appear desperate because that devalues them and the potential offer they can attract; the status gives the appearance that they'll accept anything, no matter how ridiculous. Although they appear to be a passive candidate, they may have privately made a decision that it's time to make a change. So it is wise to be prepared for that state of affairs. While it would be good to make the change early on (for example, their present employer isn't going to close shop in two weeks), they still have the time to do a reasonable search for the right fit. If the candidate is of the quality that is sought, the chances that they'll be in the market and available are slim. Recruiting and hiring process is a two-way street. Fit is a consideration for either side of the picture.

Discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to deciding to change jobs. There is a possibility that the situation can be improved, or not. But there's no need to be overt about the growing interest in making a change. If this is a first job, timing is also critical. Expenses of one's livelihood become factors when the process becomes protracted. But all of this discussion is from the candidate's perspective. Perhaps that's what we should be doing as we go through developing and executing our own process.

The other thing is that when the process takes too long it's a signal that the client is not as motivated as was initially indicated. Worse, there's the possibility that the delay indicates low regard for the candidate which in turn becomes a deterrent to making the client's situation the candidate's new employment home. It's important that the candidate feels valued and respected.

Communication is critical to creating a healthy recruiting and hiring process. It is vital to have the right job description worked out before the search is started. A determination of what skills are must have should be in place so that all are clear about what the person's role will be. If they have additional skills and knowledge to bring to bear, how can they be used to benefit the role? Perhaps the candidate is being under-utilized in the current search and deserves to be considered for something that is more of a challenge. But the candidate needs to become aware of that concern.

Sometimes recruiters (and clients) forget that candidates are humans. They all deserve respect and that respect includes regard for time, resources, timely responses, courtesy, and a valid awareness of the company culture. They also deserve to know about the company ceiling and whether there is access to some part of the roof garden, if that's what they eventually want to be involved with or occupy.

To encourage companies to keep the process goals uppermost in their efforts, The Talent Board, in collaboration with recruiting industry experts, developed the CandE Awards in 2010 and held its first recognition in 2011. Of it, founder Elaine Orler says, "Only companies that had a true positive candidate experience defined by the candidates, and proven by the candidates would be recognized. All other organizations would have access to their benchmark data to make decisions on how they can improve, . . ." She goes on to say, "[w]e recognized 25 companies that demonstrated a positive candidate experience, defined by the 11,000+ candidates that responded that year."

Where is the awards program today? Reports Orler, "As of last year the program had expanded to three major regions of the world, over 400 companies participated, and over 220,000 candidates shared their experiences, in seven languages. The data that now exists on what defines a positive, neutral, negative candidate experience is validated 10x over."

Incidentally, the ability to pull one's act together in a timely manner is also an indicator of the company culture, the company leadership, and whether the company is a desirable place to work. It's an indicator of how innovative and responsive the client is. It's also a factor in how innovative the recruiter is in developing ways to help their client remain focused on keeping the process moving forward. The recruiter provides a service to the client to keep the process moving so that the collateral and tangential losses are minimized while the brand continues to grow.

Resources:
Sponsored Links:

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Duly Elected and Qualified

Being a corporate transactional paralegal put me into the interesting responsibility of creating businesses for my clients and installing directors and officers to run them. In fact, among my responsibilities were creating the formation and governing documents for the entities.

No matter whether it was a director of the corporation or an officer, no matter whether it was a for profit or a not for profit entity, installation of the ones who had the power of governance over it were the same. They needed to be duly elected in addition to being found qualified to serve.

There comes a time when a corporate officer, or even a corporate director, does things that reflect so poorly on the organization that they need to be asked to step down. It's good to have the right protocols in place to start the conversations about leaving voluntarily or face removal.

Michael Peregrine considered such an instance when he wrote about removal of an 'unfit' officer in 2012.

Removal isn't always an easy task. Some of the directors may go into their roles with open minds and self sufficiency. But there are times when many who serve on the Board are of the same ilk as the one who needs to be removed or are receiving favors from that "governor" that tend to cloud their judgment and motivation to act in the best interests of the corporation. The requirements for making the move - the red flag situations - get clouded by these background "noises." They should not. Action needs to be taken. If it needs to be done on a one-by-one basis (as far as more than one of the officials of the entity), so be it.

How is removal of an officer or director done? Well, the first place to look is sometimes the most obvious. Check the bylaws. As with creating the formation documents, corporate rules are pretty universal. The rules governing removal are also essentially universal.

What constitutes incapacity or being unfit to serve becomes one of the compelling issues when making the determination to remove a person from office. Sometimes it's a simple matter of their violating the rules of the organization. Sometimes we can exercise some leniency and allow them to retain their position after there's been some counseling and a warning. But if the behavior continues, there aren't too many options left except removal.

Presidential Qualification

During the last ten years, the matter of being qualified to run for (and hold) office was raised a number of times. Details of what it takes to have the qualification to run for and hold the office of President can be found in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1. It says,
Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
After FDR ran for a third term, the Constitution was amended to put in place term limits under the 22d Amendment.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
One writer explains the concept of being eligible to run for the office of President in layman's terms.

So we have two rules with regard to being qualified to hold office. But that still brings us back to the question of whether or not a President can, like a corporate officer, be removed and what constitutes grounds for removal. The answer, just as with the corporate bylaws, is contained in the Constitution.

Just as a court of law does not decide whether an official of a corporation is qualified for office, so it is with a President. It is not a legal question for the office of President; it does not go to the Judicial branch for adjudication. The checks and balances provide for the Electoral College with is part of the Legislative branch. It is Congress that determines eligibility for office. It is Congress that determines if the President is unfit to serve.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 6
This election season has been very vicious. It's difficult at this writing to find U.S. authority or enlightenment on what constitutes "unfit to hold office" or what would be considered misconduct while in public office. However, just as with corporate law, it appears the issue of fitness for office is also close to being universal. And because we derive much of our law based on British jurisprudence, perhaps for this writing we should look to Crown Prosecution Service for their interpretation of misconduct in public office.

We can simplify this analysis. If the person violates the rules of the Constitution, the law of the land, there is misconduct. Creating situations that tip the scales of Justice toward finding conflicts of interest (causing undue debt for the citizens while the one or the one and their close allies benefit from being exempt from the burdens is one example). Failure to pay debts, or to pay them in a timely fashion. Exhibiting consistent behavior that signifies lack of discretion and reasonableness; in need of rational response to situations would also call into question whether a high office holder is fit to continue in office.

Some argue that President Wilson should have been removed from office because of his stroke. His wife protected him from removal. However, a compelling health issue would also be grounds for having the Vice President step into the shoes of President, or whoever the Congress determines should hold the office instead of the sitting President.

There are several books that cover this country's history with Presidents being impeached as well as actions for their removal. To name a few, consider: The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens or The History, Law, and Politics of Federal Impeachment, Second Edition.

For now, know who the people are who you propose to run your business. If they show they aren't the right fit or are veering toward taking the ship in the wrong direction, step in to take corrective actions early on, before there's drastic damage that could sink the ship.

Resources:
Consider signing and sharing a petition to evaluate the fitness to serve before confirmation of the President-elect.

Sponsored Links:

Thursday, November 24, 2016

OD Cautionary Lessons

There are times when teachable moments happen in a spontaneous way. You're not looking for them but they sort of leap in front of you as though challenging you to see whether you'll speak up or let them continue to fester. There are many risks when these situations arise.
  • The company brand suffers
  • Customers become annoyed and abandon the store or even the entire company
  • Customers take their business to the competition
  • Lack of training becomes obvious, causing further deterioration in credibility
  • Your business looks ridiculous
In an effort to avert these and other consequences of poor development initiatives and poor hiring strategies, here are a few cautionary lessons.

Cautionary lesson 1: Assign personnel to areas where they are most effective and then train them to learn and take on gradually increasing duties.

Cautionary lesson 2: Make certain a customer is treated with respect at every phase of contact. If they do not receive immediate attention because of high traffic, let them know that they are part of a queue and will be attended within the next [insert reasonable number] minutes.

Cautionary lesson 3: Don't put the customer through a chain of referrals that exceeds 2 unless it is absolutely mandatory. If the referrals are necessary, provide some reasonable explanation.















Cautionary lesson 4: Don't allow the wait time between referrals to amount to more than 2 minutes if at all possible. If the wait is longer, provide a reasonable expectation of when service will be provided.

Cautionary lesson 5: The customer will not be impressed when attending to their needs is put off by allowing the associate tell the customer they cannot be served because the associate is too busy doing something else that's more important. Don't be surprised if the customer responds that they have something else to do as well.

Cautionary lesson 6: When the employee is falling down on customer service, back office reprimands don't help rebuild brand. Asking the employee in the presence of the customer if the employee has knowledge about the service that was supposed to be delivered helps in the understanding on both sides of the equation. Immediately begin serving the customer while the employee watches and learns.

Cautionary lesson 7: Sometimes the customer who's being put on hold and referred around the store to all the personnel until they're back to the original is actually some type of expert who could be a consultant for your office. Refer to Cautionary lesson 2. Consider the image of the company that begins to form in the customer's mind as these types of scenarios evolve.

Chaos is one way to describe it. Is that what was intended?

Sponsored Links: