|
Joni Daniels, Principal, Daniels & Associates
Today, it seems that everyone is searching for that elusive sense of equilibrium. It's a goal that many people find difficult to reach. Life often gets divided into dichotomous
groups: work and home. Too often, one aspect suffers at the hands of the other.
Although it may seem like you will never be able to strike a balance between the two, it is worth the struggle. When life's balance is out of whack, it creates stress and tension. We create more pressure on ourselves by constantly trying to balance things out. A good plan can help you put things into perspective and even the keel.
Too Many Choices ?
One of the hurdles today is that we have so many choices. Advancements in technology and transportation have delivered many more options to our doorsteps. We can take college classes on the internet, access money instantly, watch videos, play computer games and search for a trademark right from our home office. We can run to the mall at the drop of a hat, order in, eat out, hop on a plane, teleconference ?countless alternatives at our fingertips. How can anyone help but feel like there aren't enough minutes in the day to try everything?
Who Shall I Be Today? ?
Role playing used to be easier. It seems that when we were kids, roles were easily defined. Today, full-time professionals also want to be perfect parents. Sports enthusiasts want to be cookbook authors and entrepreneurs. Actors want to be politicians. Politicians want to be actors. Homemakers want to go back to school for an advanced degree, maybe even start a daily work out program and join a study group. People, hungry to try a little of everything in search of the perfect life, are adding pressure to their fragile and frantic balancing acts.
Time is a Precious Resource ? Use it Wisely ?
Each day contains 24 hours. That's it. The more things we want to do, the less time we have to do them. Cramming as much as we can into our day, and then wondering why the day lacks satisfaction, is like gulping down a meal, and then wondering why we have indigestion.
If time is a finite resource, then we must choose the things that are most important and allow ourselves the time required to do them well. The feeling of satisfaction and congruency will signal that you are on the right track. That intuitive tug you feel that things are out of whack simply means that it is time to reassess how you are spending your time.
If you find that you cannot fit everything you want to accomplish into your schedule, try taking a critical look at your game plan. The two areas that cause people the most anxiety are taking on too many projects and prioritizing. Are you allowing others to make choices for you, rather than making them for yourself? Learn to say no, or define the extent of your involvement if you do say yes. The other red flag is failing to prioritize. Once you determine what is really important to you, balance becomes a simple exercise in prioritizing. The objective is to spend your time doing what is important to you.
A Strategy for the Daily Balancing Act ?
Make one list of the things that must be accomplished.
Prepare a second list of the things that you would like to do.
Review each item and determine if any items can be delegated, delayed or eliminated.
Rank each item on each list in order of importance.
Attach an estimated time for each project. If an item doesn't have to be accomplished today, plan ahead and note what day it will be addressed. Put it on the calendar.
Now, merge the two lists into one by picking out the most important items and rough out a schedule to accommodate your priorities.
Do Something ?
Even the best plans can be sabotaged if you hit a roadblock and can't get a tough project started. Simply divide the project into several shorter, manageable tasks. Place the pieces of the task on your "to do" list and knock them off one by one. Before you know it, a big project will be crossed right of the list.
No Excuses - Have Some Fun! ?
All work and no play will drive you crazy! If you find that you only have 15 minutes a day that you can devote to fun, don't despair. Think of all of the things you can do in a few minutes. In just 15 minutes you can chose from reading an article, the front page or a chapter from a book. You can call a friend, admire a favorite piece of artwork, take a short walk or play with your pet. You get the idea, no excuses! Check the balancing scale, make sure you schedule in personal time each day, and fill it with the things you love to do.
Tip: if you prepare your list the night before, you will find that you will be ready to get your day off to a quick start.
(Joni Daniels, Principal of Daniels & Associates, is a dynamic speaker with over 15 years experience presenting topics related to personal and professional development. She is also an instructor in management topics at the Wharton School's SBDC. She has successfully addressed a wide variety of audiences, has written a variety of articles and serves as a resource for a variety of business publications, and is frequently quoted on management topics. She can be reached at JDanAssoc@aol.com, 215.635.5359, or http://members.aol.com/JDanAssoc/index.com
John C. Fox is a nationally recognized employment law attorney and a partner with Fenwick & West, LLP in Palo Alto, California. He has personal experience with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) both from inside the agency as Executive Assistant to the Director and as a private sector attorney. We asked Mr. Fox if he would share his thoughts with us on the topic of OFCCP's definition of "applicant." He has been kind in offering the following viewpoint.
TAN: On April 14, 1999, Mr. Joe Kennedy, Deputy Director of the OFCCP, announced to the American Association for Affirmative Action in Birmingham that his agency did not need to redefine "applicant." OFCCP is apparently dropping its attempt to get Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for its preferred definition. Does this mean OFCCP will never define "applicant?"
JCF: Of course, OFCCP should and must define its terms, but will not do so. It will not do so because of concern in the Solicitor's Office that defining the term "applicant" may narrow it beyond the definition OFCCP offices may be able to obtain by dint of force in audits. As a result, contractors continue to become engaged in "rugby scrums" in audits across the country as they meet well intentioned OFCCP Compliance Officers trying to do their jobs and force upon the contractor a very broad definition.
TAN: If a contractor is told by compliance officials that they must collect demographic data on every person who gives indication of interest in employment with their organization, can the OFCCP enforce that definition?
JCF: OFCCP inevitably retreats to an appropriate definition in the face of enough contractor resistance and the matter almost always becomes satisfactorily resolved, even if not without a lot of sweat, frustration and energy the "rugby scrum" necessitated. And, there are still many contractors which apply very broad definitions to the satisfaction of OFCCP either because they are unsophisticated about the fine legal nuances involved in the definition of the term "applicant", or make a conscious choice to avoid a "rugby scrum" with OFCCP.
TAN: How likely is OFCCP to stop trying to enforce a requirement that doesn't exist in the regulations?
JCF: This unhappy state of affairs will continue until:
(a) the OFCCP National Office publishes (hopefully in the Federal Register) a definition of the term applicant parroting the definition which is emerging as a matter of
law; and
(b) OFCCP's National Office orders its Field Offices to apply that definition. Since this is not going to happen, the old rule of the market place continues to pertain: everyone for himself/herself. Each contractor will have to define the term for itself within its unique context and then "sell" that definition to OFCCP if and when it comes knocking.
(John C. Fox is a partner in the law firm of Fenwick and West, LLP. He is a nationally recognized expert in employment law and was previously Executive Assistant to the Director at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, responsible for enforcement and policy matters. Mr. Fox is a member of the Advisory Committee to the National Employment Law Institute and is in constant demand as a speaker and writer on all subjects relating to EEO, Affirmative Action, and Employment Law. He can be reached at JFox@fenwick.com or 650-858-7144.)
William H. Truesdell, President, The Management Advantage, Inc.
Since 1963, the law of the land has prohibited employers from paying men and women differently if they were doing the same or similar work. That social and business policy came to us in the form of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). Technically, the EPA modified the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 and is codified in Section 6(d) of the FLSA at 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d).
It says: "No employer having employees subject to [the FLSA minimum wage requirements] shall discriminate...between employees on the basis of sex by paying [different] wages to employees [based on their sex]...for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions."
Four exceptions have been built into the EPA allowing "unequal" pay between men and women IF that inequality results from:
1. a legitimate seniority system not separated by gender;
2. a legitimate merit system;
3. a piece work system;
4. a differential based on any factor other than sex.
One little known provision of the EPA is that employers may not "rebalance" wages to achieve equality between men and women in the same job by reducing the wage rate
of any employee.
A few years later, another compensation idea began receiving attention. It was known as "comparable worth." That system calls for jobs of the same worth to receive the same pay. Obviously, if one accepts that definition, then jobs of different worth can receive different pay. The concept received some official government endorsement toward the end of the Carter administration when the National Research Council's Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis issued a report (that had been commissioned by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)) endorsing comparable worth. In part that report said, "...the strategy of 'comparable worth,' that is, equal pay for jobs of equal worth, merits consideration as an alternative policy of intervention in the pay-setting process wherever women are systematically underpaid." (Donald Treiman and Heidi I. Hartmann, eds. (1981), "Women, Work and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value," Washington, DC: National Academy Press.) Equal pay applies to "the same or similar jobs, requiring similar skill, effort and responsibility. For example, a man working as a Computer Systems Engineer in Portland, Oregon should be paid the same amount as a woman working as a Computer Systems Engineer in Portland, Oregon as long as the jobs require similar skill, effort and responsibility. If the job is in a different location, a market-based pay adjustment can legally be made under the EPA. Comparable worth, on the other hand, calls for equal pay to men and women who are performing different (unequal) jobs. Those jobs may require different skill, effort and responsibility. For example, comparable worth concepts might be used to draw comparisons between licensed architects and construction crane operators.
Federal courts have generally been unwilling to decide in favor of women who claimed predominantly female jobs were paid less than comparable male jobs. Essentially, employers have prevailed in these cases even when the female plaintiffs could present evidence in the form of job evaluations showing that predominantly female and predominantly male jobs were indeed "comparable." Some of the cases have been:
· Christensen v. Iowa (563 F.2d 353, 8th Cir. 1977) Female clerical workers at the University of Iowa argued that they had been discriminated against because their jobs received lower pay than those of men in physical plant jobs. The University's job evaluation system put the two job categories in the same labor grade and assigned equal point values to both. The University argued that the wage difference simply reflected different wage rates prevailing in the external labor market. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said, "We do not interpret Title VII as requiring an employer to ignore the market in setting wage rates for genuinely different work classifications."
· Lemons v. City and County of Denver (17 FEP Cases 906 D. Col. 1978, 620 F2d 228, 10th Cir., 1980, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 888, 1980) Nurses working for the City of Denver argued that their jobs were paid less than predominantly male jobs, including tree trimmers, sign painters, and real estate appraisers, that required less training and skill. They did not win.
· AFSCME v. State of Washington (578 F.Supp. 846, 1983, 770 F.2d 1401, 9th Cir. 1985, reh'g den., 813 F.2d 1034, 1987) The Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling. It said the state had not discriminated against women by paying predominantly female jobs less than comparable jobs that were occupied predominantly by males. The Court of Appeals referred to its own ruling in Spaulding v. University of Washington (740 F.2d 686, 1984, cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 511, 1984).
· International Union, UAW v. State of Michigan (673 F.Supp. 893, ED Mich. 1987, aff'd sub nom., International Union, UAW v. State of Michigan, no. 87-2228, 6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1989) Rejected comparable worth suit brought by state government employees.
· California State Employees' Association v. State of California (no. C-84-7275, U.S. District Court, ND Calif. October 3, 1989) Rejected comparable worth suit brought by state government employees.
Since 1984, Congress has toyed with the notion of studying the federal government pay system to determine whether the worth of predominantly female jobs was reflected in the pay rates for those jobs. Several times the issue was passed by the House of Representatives, but failed once it reached the Senate. In the private sector, little has happened to indicate comparable worth would ever be adopted as a compensation system. The New York Times quoted President Reagan in 1984 as saying, "...the concept was 'nebulous' and would represent 'an unprecedented intrusion into our private affairs.'"
Then, in June of 1984, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held rather extensive hearings on the question of using comparable worth compensation systems. In April, 1985, its commissioners voted 5-2 to urge Congress and government agencies to reject the doctrine of equal pay for jobs of comparable worth.
In June, 1985, the EEOC's five commissioners voted unanimously that federal law does not require employers to give equal pay for different jobs of comparable worth.
President Bush's administration did not change direction of these social and civil rights policies. Throughout the Bush years, there was nearly no support for the comparable worth system.
Under President Clinton, government agencies have been moving quietly but firmly toward use of comparable worth to repair what the President calls the imbalance of pay to women in this country. He has stirred a great deal of political support for his idea of equal pay. In fact, the Equal Pay Act now being debated in Congress calls for mandatory comparable worth compensation systems in both the private and public sectors. Virtually all employers will have to change their compensation programs or face legal challenges and financial penalties under the provisions of this bill. The bill allows unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, and will eliminate exceptions based on market rate differentials and location differentials. Essentially, experts say, that will require employers to pay a woman working in Fargo, South Dakota the same as a man in New York City if they perform the same jobs. (S. 74, Sen. Daschle)
If we step back and look at the issue from a distance, we would probably ask, "How are we to determine the value or "worth" of jobs within any employer organization?"
Basically, there are two ways to do that. One is by assessing the value of each job to the employer. This is generally determined by assessing the "value added" or "productivity" offered by the job. A second view would rate value based on what the job offers to the employee in its "desirability." These two concepts are explained by Mark R. Killingsworth in his book, The Economics of Comparable Worth, (W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1990, ISBN: 0-88099-085-6) Dr. Killingsworth is professor of economics at Rutgers University and research economist at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He earned his masters and doctorate degrees from the University of Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. In his book, he analyzes comparable worth compensation plans that have been implemented in the City of San Jose, California, the State of Minnesota, and by the national government
of Australia.
In San Jose and Minnesota, implementation of comparable worth compensation resulted in substantial pay increases to lessen the gap between predominantly female and predominantly male jobs. These were actually implemented over a period of years, not given all at once. And, the pay adjustments did not eliminate all sex differences in pay.
Pay differences between male jobs and female jobs in San Jose ranged from 10.2% to 26.1% eighteen months after full implementation. In Minnesota, the differences ranged from 4.4% to 16.4% nearly a year after full implementation. Dr. Killingsworth concluded that, "the comparable worth pay adjustments did not result in 'equal pay for jobs of comparable worth.' The adjustments did make pay for jobs of comparable worth somewhat less unequal." (pg. 282)
He goes on in his conclusions to say, "As comparable worth proponents quite rightly point out, neither existing antidiscrimination measures nor possible extensions (e.g., use of antitrust laws) have achieved, or would achieve, quick results: the wheels of justice can often turn exceedingly slowly. But the tacit conclusion -- that one can expect comparable worth, however misguided, to achieve results more quickly -- is untenable."
"Adopting comparable worth as a solution to problems of discrimination," according to Dr. Killingsworth, "is akin to adopting prohibition as a solution to the nation's problems with alcohol abuse. Each is addressed to a serious problem, but the costs and difficulties of each are quite substantial -- so much so as to warrant adopting other solutions instead."
There appears to be strong support in both Houses of Congress for S. 74. And, the President has already announced he will sign it if it is sent to him. If S. 74 is passed into law as it now stands, most employers in the country will have to redesign their compensation programs. That is a prospect you might want to alert your CEO about.
The Clinton administration has sent out signals that it will issue a new procurement policy that would require all federal contractors to have a "satisfactory" labor record before a government contract is issued. A draft of this policy obtained by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) states that companies must have a "satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics." According to the policy, this includes compliance with tax laws, labor and employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws and other consumer protection laws.
Federal contractors employ over 23 million workers and generate about $200 billion in goods and services.
We are unsure how the government plans to define or measure "satisfactory."
Howard Edson, president of One-Team in Alamo, California is a firm believer in coaching within organizations. And, he points out, he is not the only believer. An increasing number of Fortune 500 firms are finding that coaching is an emerging human technology that is a particularly potent contributor to improvements in productivity, quality of work life and organizational sustainability.
But how do you know if implementing a coaching program is right for your organization? Here are a few check-list items you can use to determine if you should pursue a coaching program for your enterprise.
Do you want to move away from hierarchy to a more distributed leadership? Coaching can give your staff the confidence and skills to pull it off.
Are you concerned about high employee turnover and the high cost of replacing individuals who seem to be leaving at an increasing rate? Coaching is helping slow the revolving door in some firms.
Are you wondering how you can get several strong egos to work together more smoothly? Coaching can help extreme personalities work together to produce phenomenal results.
Do you have virtual teams that are not meeting their potential? Coaching can foster team connection, motivation, productivity gains and learning.
Are you committed to expanding the leadership talent in your organization, but having difficulty getting that done? Coaching programs can help you replicate leaders by providing tailored, just-in-time learning, and competency-based rehearsals.
According to Edson, it is because people today are being told to "do more with less" that coaching programs have been so successful. He points out that such programs are cost effective, often returning many times their cost in higher productivity and project effectiveness.
If you are interested in further information about coaching programs you can reach Edson by email at howard@one-team.com.
William H. Truesdell, President, The Management Advantage, Inc.
For the past few years it seems HR professionals have been on "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride"(tm). Well, hold on to your hats, folks. The future is going to seem more like "Space Mountain"(tm). There will be dips and sudden changes of direction and occasional dark tunnels to traverse.
What will keep HR professionals safely in their seats during the tumultuous times ahead? Actually, there are several preparations we can make to effectively weave a safety belt so we won't be thrown off the ride. How artfully you develop your own belt-weaving skills will determine the strength of your personal safety belt.
One essential skill can be developed only in operations management. Only when you can say, "Been there. Done that," will you be taken seriously by other people in key organizational positions. This will be perhaps the single most important success factor for senior-level HR practitioners. While few people question the value of education and professional HR certification, only line-management experience will create the credibility needed to gain a seat at the executive table.
Once you have operations management experience, you can begin working on developing the other skills needed for your HR safety belt. They must include: Expert knowledge of increasingly complex laws and regulations governing employee management; understanding cultures and societies beyond those we normally think about; and, the capability to structure HR solutions to organizational problems.
Expert Knowledge
HR professionals are not just assigned to labor relations and payroll any more. In today's world they must be thoroughly knowledgeable about employee management laws and regulations. If your organization spans more than one law-making jurisdiction, your task is more complicated because different jurisdictions have a tendency to craft their requirements to fit their own needs. There is little thought given by lawmakers to consistency across the country. Certainly, there is infrequent consideration given to employer's needs in the law-making process.
As our future develops, there will be more, not less, government requirement for employers. Benefits legislation has just begun to develop. You can expect to see additional codified protections for pension programs and health care programs. Some lawmakers believe that employees should be indemnified against any possible problem. That thinking has been pulling legal requirements inexorably toward a world of greater employee protections. And, HR professionals must keep pace with each of those new requirements. The entire issue of social security system reform is on the horizon.
You can also look for new legislation to develop which will deal with HMO liability for patient injury.
Understanding Other Cultures
HR professionals will be leading the world in an attempt to grasp cultural impacts coming from the massive demographic shifts we are currently experiencing. In many parts of the country today, the White population no longer constitutes a majority. Hispanic, Asian and Black populations are growing to positions of prominence in many parts of our country. Add to that demographic shift the impact of an increasingly global economy and you can readily see that cultural understanding becomes paramount.
Those cultural differences will not only be evident in employee populations, but will become even more important in customer populations as well. Our constituencies are changing whether our work is in the public or private sectors. Our customer base is altering its characteristics. And, we have to be able to help our organizations address those changes by leading other parts of our organizations through them. For that reason, I believe we will see HR play a key role in counseling marketing and sales executives, for example.
It is the cultural shift which, more than any other, will help elevate HR professionals to strategic contributors in their organizations. Cultural shifts must be considered in all future strategic discussions, and HR professionals can be well positioned to represent the body of knowledge required to address those issues.
Structuring HR Solutions to Organizational Problems
In the future we will see more emphasis on issues of international compensation rates, comparable benefit programs, and government reporting. As a matter of fact, there are currently twelve major employer-affecting issues being considered by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Management and Budget. If all were to be given a green light, employers would be faced with serious increases in their compliance-related budgets.
Judge each of your future problems against what is best for the organization first. Then consider what is best for your employees. Coming from a human resource professional, that advice may be a bit unexpected. However, increasing compensation or benefits may sound good for employees until you realize that to do so would cripple the organization. Without an organization there can be no employees. Think first of your organization and you will improve the perception other managers have of HR's ability to contribute at a strategic level.
| 
In This Issue
