|
DO YOU USE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES? WHAT DO
YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM? Use of temporary,
leased, and contract employees is a growing part of
daily life in many North American businesses. In fact,
according to the American Staffing Association, 90
percent of companies use contract staffing services!
In 2002, 2.1 million people worked as temporary
employees each day.
Unfortunately, despite the many advantages claimed
for this practice, it holds substantial risks to
employers. They may feel overly secure with their
staffing provider, not realizing they probably share
joint liability with the agency for the behaviors of
temporary workers. In Utah, for example, the State
Supreme Court ruled, “even temporary workers have an
agency relationship with both the temporary agency that
initially employed them and the company that uses their
services under arrangements with the agencies. ”[Kunz v.
Beneficial Temporaries, 921 P. 2d 456 (Utah 1996).]
Special risks associated with temporary workers have
been recognized by sources as diverse as the New
Hampshire Society of CPA’s (“...employers have a similar
obligation to make sure the temporary agencies from whom
they are seeking workers are exercising this “reasonable
care” in hiring workers …”), Britain’s famous MI5
intelligence agency (“...You should have procedures for
assessing the reliability and integrity of those
[temporary employees] you wish to employ…”), and
insurers, concerned about safety risks (“A higher
accident rate is documented for temporary agency work.
“)
So, you are committed to using temporary workers. How
do you protect yourself? Here is a brief outline of some
suggestions from a variety of professional sources:
Conduct a procedures review with your staffing
agency, and document it. Look at application forms,
reference checking, assessments used, background
checking, and interviewing procedures.
Check the agency’s own references—past and current
clients can shed light on how their placements work
out.
Insist they use professionally developed, valid,
reliable assessments in the screening process.
Do you think the last point might be going too far?
Consider this: The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac, to most) relies on nearly 40
temporary-staffing agencies to fill a wide range of
positions in their organization. In order to become a
provider, an agency must agree, in writing, to subject
each temporary worker placed within Freddie Mac to a
rigorous background check. Moreover, the temp agency
must agree to pay for the background check!
As Cindy Waxer concluded in "Workforce Management,"
June 2004, “Detailed background checks, computer
security measures and relationship-building exercises
might seem drastic given that the majority of today’s
temporary workers complete their assignments without
incident. But according to Monica Barron, who recently
left her position as research director at AMR Research,
the risk of property and identity theft have raised the
stakes. ‘I don’t think you can be too careful about
really knowing who’s coming into your facilities and
what they are doing,” she says.
It is your money, your business, and your future at
risk; what do you know about the temporary workers who
come and go from your business each day?
Take control of their (your) selection process and
procedures.
COMPLACENCY IN EMPLOYEE RISKS-WHY WE DON’T DO
MORE?
Sometimes, our natural tendencies to
believe in people, to wish for the best, and to minimize
the negatives in our own businesses can combine to make
us complacent, especially regarding risks associated
with our employees. After all, we believe we’ve done a
good job in hiring, we have good people in place, and
most people won’t do bad things. The following
collection of popular myths and corresponding realities
may make you uncomfortable—and that might be a good
thing!
Myth 1: We are careful in the selection of
our employees! Naturally you are, but the
majority of employees who steal are ‘first time
offenders.’
Myth 2: We have our own security
department! Last year, a western regional
bank suffered a number of “ski-mask” robberies. When the
robber was finally caught, he turned out to be the
bank’s Director of Security!
Myth 3: Our computer systems have the latest
in anti-hacking systems. That’s fine, but
more than 65 percent of IT crime is traceable to
insiders.
Myth 4: Our cameras and undercover agents
catch most shoplifters. According to the
National Retail Security Survey, 48 percent of
merchandise losses are attributable to employees.
Myth 5: Our procedures are
foolproof. Famous last words. Many of
the largest frauds occur in companies who say precisely
this. However effective the internal control and
accounting system, it is not unbeatable.
Myth 6: We would not want to offend staff who
have been with us for many years. Thoughtful
and considerate, but employees rarely object.
Myth 7: We won’t be badly hurt by isolated
incidents. Perhaps not. But most large
losses are caused by long-term, ongoing schemes that are
cleverly hidden for years.
Myth 8: We have never suffered a theft by an
employee. That may be true, but the fact
that you may never have had a fire or a vehicle involved
in an accident, does not prevent you taking out property
insurance. The first loss really hurts!
Myth 8a:We have never suffered a theft by an
employee. Maybe you have, but you don’t know
it yet. U.S. businesses lose as much as $110M dollars a
day due to employee-related crimes. However, most
employee theft goes undetected.
Even though it goes against the grain and may be
painful—you owe it to yourself, your employees, and
anyone who relies on your business to acknowledge you
are at risk and do what you can to minimize that risk.
An audit of your risks and vulnerabilities may be your
best guarantee of survival.
EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN HIRING
PRACTICES—ASSESSMENT AND HUMAN
In 2002, a manufacturer conducted a
study of the effects of using the Step One Survey™ (SOS)
on its hiring practices. A summary of this study is
included in the table below and serves as a baseline for
evaluation of subsequent changes in hiring practices.
In fall of 2003, and continuing through the summer of
2004, the company experienced explosive growth in demand
for their products. From September of 2003 to September
of 2004, total headcount increased by approximately 75
percent. This hiring program necessitated a major
recruiting effort, and a consequent relaxation of the
criteria previously applied to the Step One Survey™
scores. At the same time, supervisors were probably more
reluctant to terminate an employee for cause, as they
were often operating with a labor shortage.
Another variable was introduced to the hiring process
in early May of 2004, when a professional recruiter was
added to the HR staff, to conduct hiring interviews. She
made hire/no hire recommendations to managers after her
interview was completed.
Two major questions were considered in analyzing
these data:
- Did the relaxation of Step One Survey™ score
criteria affect early failure?
- Did the addition of the professional recruiter
impact early failure?
Effects of relaxation of SOS
criteria: For the purpose of this analysis,
it is important to note that the effects of the
criterion change are probably partially masked by the
labor shortage effects mentioned earlier. For example,
if the effect of the change was to permit the hiring of
candidates with somewhat lower reliability, it is also
likely that supervisors faced with a critical labor
shortage and a pressing production goal would be more
tolerant of lower reliability in a given worker, as the
alternative would have been an even greater labor
shortage.
The standard of comparison in both studies was “early
failure,” defined as failure of a hired worker to remain
employed with the company for six calendar months.
Overall, the six-month failure rate in the previous
study had been 51 percent before use of the SOS
(baseline), and reduced to 29 percent with adoption of
SOS criteria, eliminating from consideration any
candidate with two or more scale scores of three or
less. This process resulted in a hiring percentage of 53
percent of all applicants.
In the current study period, with more relaxed use of
the SOS scores, 78 percent of all applicants were hired.
The six-month failure rate rose to 49 percent, near the
rate of failure when the SOS was not in use. This is a
blended rate, including applicants hired both before and
after the addition of the recruiter interview to the
process.
Within the current study, differences in failure
rates were observed before and after the change in the
hiring process. Of the 411 applicants hired before the
change, 208, or 51 percent, were early hiring failures.
Of the 174 hired after the change, 76 were early
failures, a reduction to 44 percent. It should be noted,
the failure rate dropped by seven percent, even though
the total percentage of applicants hired only dropped by
two percent. Apparently, some benefit was achieved
independent of a reduction in percent hired, perhaps
through better placement.
It seemed likely, if the recruiter’s efforts were
improving hiring success, additional improvement might
be apparent after she had become more familiar with the
company and the task at hand. Analysis of hires
completed after she had been on the job nearly a month,
confirmed this hypothesis. Of those hires, only 38
percent experienced early failure, even though the
percentage hired went up to 81 percent.
Summary of findings: The data,
now spanning three different calendar years and three
different levels of use of the SOS (none / strict
criterion / relaxed criterion), indicate a consistent
relationship between systematic use of SOS scores and
successful hiring. While the recruiter, after gaining
experience, positively impacted hiring, the simple use
of an empirically derived SOS criterion was nearly twice
as effective.

"The road to happiness lies in two simple principles:
find what interests you and that you can do well, and
put your whole soul into it."
~ John D. Rockefeller,
III
| In
response to numerous requests, we are including
below excerpts from Al Rainaldi’s opening speech
underscoring the theme “Go For Greatness” at the
Profiles 2005 Annual
Conference. | |
THE ELEMENTS OF GREATNESS
Today, it is not enough to be the best in your field
or to be number one in your industry. In both of these
instances, your performance is judged against what is
currently considered "the best".
Being great involves more than aspiring to a
currently held level of "best". Greatness requires a
different level of thinking that moves you beyond what
currently exists.
How can we accomplish goals, provide service or
create in a manner that astonishes...not just
satisfies?
What, then, is greatness?
For each of us, greatness has its own definition as
it relates to our lives and experiences. Regardless of
how we define it, greatness has certain key elements.
These are: Vision, Belief, Desire, Courage,
Perseverance, Execution and Passion.
Elements of Greatness
- Vision
Can you see,
touch and taste your dreams?
Your vision should
be crystal clear. You should be able to describe it in
precise terms. It should transcend the obvious and
look into the future.
Take a minute and remove
the self-imposed shackles that limit how far you
really see. Take time to dream, imagine and pretend.
- Belief
This is belief
that is beyond “hope”…an absolute faith in your
vision, in yourself and in the outcome. You have to
believe that you are worthy to achieve your
vision.
- Desire
What gives
depth and meaning to your life? To achieve your
vision, you’ve “got to want it - really want it!” This
is not “I’d like” or ”I want”…this is a BURNING
DESIRE.
- Courage
Courage is
the ability to place your dreams above your fears.
Often, to achieve greatness, you must get out of your
comfort zone into the pain zone. People will challenge
you when you attempt to be different – when you
attempt to be great. No one will care if you do less –
but when you excel, you become a target.
Great
work is done by people who are not afraid to be great.
- Perseverance
In the
face of disappointment, setbacks and
barriers...perseverance is the strength to take one
step…and then another...and then another. Greatness is
more about perseverance than strength. Many fortunes,
relationships and competitions are lost because people
quit too soon.
- Execution
At what
level will you execute your vision? Create; handle the
details; finish what you started; refine and
improve.
“If your chosen maximum is the
required minimum, the sum total of your life will be
mediocrity.”
- Passion
What spark
lights your soul? What drives you?
Without
passion, life is a series of chores. It is the passion
in your life….that makes life worth living. If you’re
not passionate about the process be passionate about
the result. If you are not passionate about the
result…change your focus.
Never – never
confuse survival with success.
Conclusion Many of us live day to
day with unused potential. We experience greatness in
only small, peripheral ways in our lives. But in order
to experience greatness regularly, consistently, almost
daily in each of our lives, it requires enormous
personal security, openness, creativity and a spirit of
adventure.
It is not enough to aspire to greatness in only one
area of your life. When you truly aspire to greatness,
it gives more depth and meaning to all aspects of your
existence...in your career, in your relationships and in
your dreams.
But there is a caveat. Perhaps Winston Churchill said
it best, “The price of Greatness is Responsibility.”
To be truly GREAT - live like you’ll never die and
work like there’s no tomorrow.
|