Do you know your people? Are they happy? How do you know? Could you say with 100% certainty that they’re not only engaged in their work, but they’re also satisfied? Remember what mom said about assuming…[hint: it’s not good]. There are two different standards in play, and if you are at all hesitating in your response, you may be more vulnerable than you think. Read more…
A new round of the Employment Law Blog Carnival: Entertaining and informative! Join us for some malaprops http://goo.gl/4R5RX3
Thank you HR Examiner for reminding us that it’s time to get down to brass roots, otherwise, we’ll be stuck with an optical conclusion.
For clarity, I want to state that the scope of this post is solely about technological responsibility and the effects of technology choice.
On September 1st, the General Counsel for the NLRB issued Memorandum 15-08 which amounts to a go-ahead for “click to organize” authorizations. There are compelling implications that must remain inextricably bound to ethical responsibility. The NLRB’s actions, by virtue of Memorandum 15-08, are severely flawed and the proposed benefits do not even come close to outweighing the potential costs. There is no justification for the NLRB’s actions in this case. Why more rushing of an already rushed process? Just because we “can” surely does not mean we “should.”
I’m teaching a course in media usability studies, which naturally leads to a keener awareness of UX/UI. I’ve been thinking about employer (ER) branding within websites as an essential, holistic vehicle to attract target talent. Sometimes the message is clearly conveyed and sometimes it’s not.
The simple question: Do outsiders “get you?”
Your employment application represents your organization in ways that may not be readily apparently to you or your potential employees. It’s worth the time to rethink and revise the application often. Involve several people who are not part of the organization as they will provide a fresh perspective and perhaps point out things internal reviewers may miss.
Some of the things that stand out:
- Is everything you are asking the candidate to provide relevant to the job?
- Are questions well-written and unambiguous?
- Any typos? [it happens far too often]
- How long should it take for an applicant to complete? Is that reasonable?
- Does the application flow or are sections disjointed and confusing?
- What kind of impression will the potential employee have of your organization?
- What kind of impression do you want to convey?
Typos signal that the person putting together the application fields is careless and/or not quality-minded. Irrelevant and poorly written questions frustrate candidates and may prompt them to abort the application process. Moving from one section of the application to the next, the candidate should feel like it’s cohesive, rather than distracting. All it takes is one little distraction or frustration and – poof – the applicant is gone.
Last, but certainly not least, think about the amount of time the applicant will spend deciphering any of the above and/or completing the online application process. Keep in mind they likely have more than one potential employer in their crosshairs and time is a finite resource.
If you haven’t had a recent failure, you’re in denial, or you’re not pushing yourself to realize your potential. Either way, it’s time to adjust how you view failure. Success can’t exist without it. The difference between success and a FAIL is learning from the experience. Read more…
To those of us who prowl the tech pages every day, it’s no surprise that the future of wearables brings corporate risk in new forms. It’s been a long time coming and now it’s here: wearable tech and litigation. Trends always balance upon the intended and unintended uses of every technology and scientific development. Simply because one cannot imagine it, does not mean it cannot happen. [Ominous, but true.]
With regard to wearable tech in the workplace, consider the implications of the following: Read more…