WEBINAR: The Business Value of Employee Wellbeing

Quick announcement and an invitation to join me at my friends from Virgin Pulse next Wednesday, September 6 at 2PM ET for a FREE webinar on The Business Value of Employee Wellbeing.

This is an incredibly interesting topic, one that I have written about previously at HR Executive and about which Trish McFarlane and I did a recent HR Happy Hour Podcast on.

Details for next weeks' webinar are here:

Employees today are working more hours, taking less time off, more stressed, exercising less and falling short of reaching their potential – at work and at home. Successful HR and benefits leaders are smarter and more thoughtful about how wellbeing programs have an impact in driving desired people and business outcomes.

Join "The Business Value of Employee Wellbeing" with Steve Boese (that's me), long-time HR industry influencer and co-founder of H3HR Advisors. Steve will share his unique perspectives from having served in product development, enterprise HR and benefits system management, as an industry analyst, and now a popular industry voice and thought leader. Andrew Jacobus, Vice President of Insights and Data Science at the Virgin Pulse Institute, will share real-life examples of organizations achieving improvements to their bottom line due to the effectiveness of their employee wellbeing programs.

On the webinar you will hear:

What key elements of wellbeing programs drive business results

Which metrics illustrate employee wellbeing’s impact on productivity, performance, and revenue

How to drive engagement through social connections and a personalized experience

And more...

It should be a fun an interesting session and I hope you can join.

Register for the webinar here.

Hope to see you then!

What should an employer do when the state reduces the minimum wage?

While confessing to not knowing any of the back story or local details behind this, I read with interest this piece in the Atlantic about the state of Missouri rollback of the city of St. Louis minimum wage from $10/hour back down to $7.70/hour. The Atlantic piece is solid, if a little long, so if you don't have time to dig in to it the essentials are as follows:

1. The city passed an ordinance which was designed to gradually increase the minimum wage in St. Louis from $7.70 to $11. The wage had hit $10 just three months ago, in May.

2. The state of Missouri, whose governor and state legislature were not in favor of this increase, passed a so-called 'preemption' law, effectively barring cities and other local jurisdictions from setting local minimum wages at a level greater than the state level minimum wage.

3. The preemption law went into effect on this past Monday, reducing or re-aligning the minimum wage in St. Louis back down to the state level of $7.70.

Got all that?

Why this was interesting to me was not because of the politics of it, the local control vs. state level authority issues, or even the economic benefits and/or constraints that minimum wages place on labor markets.

What is interesting is the dynamics at individual employers who just three months ago were forced/compelled to raise wages to $10/hour for anyone earning less than that, and who know are allowed, by virtue of the preemption law going into effect, to cut wages back, as far back as $7.70.

These numbers might seem small, but a cut from $10 to $7.70 is almost a 25% reduction in pay. I don't care what you are earning, if the boss cuts you by a quarter, you are going to feel some pain.

So back to the interesting, (to me) stuff. Employers in St. Louis have three (maybe more, but they would be variations of these), options with respect to the wages of any folks they had to give increases to back in May,

1. Cut everyone who was bumped up to $10 back to their wage level as of May. 

2. Keep everyone at $10 who was given the bump in May.

3. Pick and choose who gets to stay at $10, (the better performers, more essential folks), and bump others back to their May hourly rate, or some other rate less than $10 that better reflects their performance, value, and position relative to their peers.

Options 1 and 2 are the easiest to implement, and for different reasons, the easiest to justify back to the employees. Which is why I would expect that the vast majority of employers will opt for one of these approaches,

Option 3 is harder to effect, requires better understanding of employee performance and value, needs managers that know what is going on and can communicate clearly why decisions are being made the way they are, and could possibly drive better overall performance, as better workers feel more rewarded, and the others see a way to work towards the wages they desire.

Yep, Option 3 is definitely much harder to pull off. Which for some cynical reason seems to me the one that the fewest employers will pursue.

Have a great day!

In the automation era, maybe people are still a competitive advantage

In the last year of so I kind of moved off of the 'robots are taking all the jobs' topic as I had gotten a little tired of it and after reading 17.993 pieces on the subject it is pretty clear that nothing at all is clear about it.

Maybe the robots will take all of the jobs. Maybe they will only take the 'bad' jobs that we don't want to do. Or maybe we will have to someday co-exist with our robot masters.

Or maybe people and our unique ability to connect with other people will continue to be an important competitive differentiator in a world where we seem more and more inclined to develop and implement technology to remove people from business processes. Tale a look at an excerpt from a piece in Fortune last week about how the home improvement and supply giant Lowes is rethinking the importance of real, live employees in delivering better customer service, (emphasis mine)

The company (Lowes) said its adjusted profit was $1.57 per share, below analysts' average estimate of $1.61, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S, while net sales climbed 6.8 percent to $19.50 billion, short of forecasts for $19.53 billion. Comparable sales rose 4.5%, well below the result posted last week by Home Depot, suggesting Lowe's continues to struggle to capitalize on the housing boom compared to its nemesis.

But the home improvement retailer thinks it has found a solution: increasing hours for store workers to improve customer service.

"While our results were below our expectations in the first half of this year, the team remains focused on making the necessary investments to improve the customer experience," CEO Robert Niblock said in a statement. He added: "This includes amplifying our consumer messaging and incremental customer-facing hours in our stores." 

'Incremental customer-facing hours' might be the worst possible CEO-speak for 'putting more employees on the floor' but the real point can't be lost in the gobbledy-gook. If you have ever shopped in a Lowes or similar big-box format store you know that actually finding a customer service employee to help you with a question or to get help locating an item can be a daunting task. It seems so obvious that increasing staffing, hours, and enhancing the knowledge of store associates would likely drive significant increases in customer satisfaction, sales, and longer term loyalty.

But in the last several years most businesses like Lowes have seemed to focus energy and investment in all things digital - better websites and apps, self-checkouts, and even in Lowes case - actual robots that work in the stores.

But maybe, still, consumers see the value, understanding, and empathy that only people can provide. Maybe in a world where it seems like most of your competitors are moving towards ecosystems and processes that remove people and increase automation that actually providing old-school, in-person, and expert customer service, (from human employees), can still be a source of competitive advantage.

Really interesting times we live in where increasing customer service employees to improve a customer service problem seems like a bold, innovative, out of the box strategy.

Have a great week!

PODCAST: #HRHappyHour 293 - Workplace Movie Hall of Fame: Flashdance

HR Happy Hour 293 - Workplace Movie Hall of Fame - Flashdance

Hosts: Trish McFarlane, Steve Boese

Listen HERE

This week on the HR Happy Hour Show, Steve and Trish continue The Workplace Movie Hall of Fame series with a look at the big HR and workplace themes in the 1983 hit "Flashdance".

Flashdance was released in 1983 and starred Jennifer Beals as Alex and Michael Nouri as the boss. Alex is a female dynamo: steel worker by day, exotic dancer by night. Her dream is to get into a real dance company, though, and with encouragement from her boss/boyfriend, she may get her chance

Flashdance was also the 3rd highest grossing film in the US in 1983 - $92.9M.

The film has several big HR and workplace themes running though it - some seriously hostile and harassing work environments for women, a probably inappropriate, (and definitely creepy) romance between the boss and one of his very young employees, how leaders do or do not support employee's dreams and career goals, and the importance of having a more expansive and inclusive idea of talent and potential.

We dug into how these themes are portrayed in the movie, how they inform how we think about work and workplaces today, and what we can learn from looking back at some really different norms in workplaces in 1983.

Steve and Trish also talked about the importance of leadership, kindness in the workplace, and even if it is ever appropriate to kiss and/or hug at work.

You can listen to the show on the show page HERE, or using the widget player below:

This was a really fun show! 

Thanks as always to show sponsor Virgin Pulse - learn more at www.virginpulse.com.

Subscribe to the HR Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and all the podcast apps.

Tenure and Unhappiness at Work

Caught some interesting data looking at the happiness and satisfaction with work of employees in the UK broken down by different age cohorts. As reported in Bloomberg, UK workers aged 35 years and up were twice as likely to be unhappy with work as their younger, millennial colleagues.

Here's a quick look at one data set from the research conducted by Happiness Works and Robert Half UK about employee unhappiness distributed across age groups:

According to this data, unhappiness at work takes a pretty decent sized step up in the 35 to 54 age group and increase a bit more with the 55+ group. Couple of small/medium/big things to think about before we take this data totally at face value.

One is just what do we mean by 'unhappiness?' Is it 'kind of had a bad day that day' unhappiness or is it 'I am about three minutes away from quitting and smashing the printer on the way out the door' unhappiness? And second, what is the 'normal' or expected amount of unhappiness we'd expect to find in an average workplace? I can't think of any scenario when you get a large group of people in any kind of shared endeavor where some of them wouldn't be happy. Even a few folks I heard from yesterday thought the Great American Solar Eclipse was a little underwhelming.

But getting past those concerns for a second, let's think about the implications of increasing unhappiness as the workforce ages a bit more. If true, or even kind of true, this could be an issue for more and more workplaces and more and more leaders of HR and people.

Here's some more data, courtesy of my pals at the BLS. From 2015, a quick look at the median age of the US workforce, and some projections out to 2024

How about that? The US labor force is trending older, and the trend is expected to hold for the next decade if not a little longer. So if workforces are getting older and unhappiness with work seems to be associated with the employee's age, then you could expect even more acute challenges to come with respect to happiness and its cousin employee engagement.

The problem of course with aging in the workforce is that it is pretty similar to our own personal battles with aging and its effects. It happens, or seems to happen, so gradually that we hardly even notice it. And then Wham! all of a sudden we have gotten older. And we usually are not prepared for that day.

If you are someone who has some concern or responsibility for the health, wellbeing, happiness, and productivity of a workplace you probably ought to be thinking about these issues a bit more than you have in the past.

And it probably wouldn't hurt to take time to think about your own happiness and wellbeing too.