Last week our blog was a little different.  We told you some real-life examples of interview experiences and asked you if you thought it was a good or a bad idea.  All of them were, in our opinions, bad ideas.  Now, we’ll forget with the question of, ‘is it a good or a bad idea?’ and just tell you that we think all of these things are a good idea.

1.       Ask for a business card so you can send a very short follow up email. 

The email should take no more than a few seconds for the reader to read and should require no response.  A perfect email may be something like, “Just a short note to thank you very much for meeting with me this afternoon and to let you know that I am very interested in this position and look forward to hearing from you.  Please feel free to email or telephone me if you require any other information or, if you would like to arrange for another meeting.  Thanks again.”

 

2.       Do your homework and find out what the “dress code” for the office is and, then dress in the same fashion for your interview.

If the office is business casual, then dress business casual but, be sure that your sense of business casual matches theirs.   It’s better to dress up than dress down but, it’s best to match.

3.       If you have something that you can take to your interview that is an appropriate example of work you have done, take it. 

The adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words” is very true.  If you have something that will compliment your explanation, it is only going to benefit you…although be sure it’s appropriate and you’re not just filling time playing “Show and Tell.”   

4.       At the end of the interview, make sure, as you’re shaking hands, that you repeat the names of the people you met during the interview.

It shows that you listened and cared to remember the names of the people involved.  It makes a great first impression.

5.       Be prepared with questions.  Here are our three favourite:

a.       What do you think will be the biggest challenge for the person who is given this job?

After you get the answer, you can tell them how you would overcome the challenge.

b.      What will the person in this job need to do to make you (the boss) look good?

The answer to this question will give you a better understanding of the boss’ personal expectations for the person who gets the job.

c.       If there was one thing that you could change about your job, what would it be? 

Ask this question to the person on the interview panel who is the “lowest on the totem pole”.  This gives you another opportunity to get an idea of the corporate culture and how it fits with your cultural preference.

We’ve decided to take a bit of a different approach to our blog this time.  Instead of telling you a story, we’re going to provide you with brief description of something that a person we were interviewing for a job has actually done.  Your job is to decide whether you think we thought each was a good idea or a bad idea.  This is an opinionated blog, so feel free to disagree with our opinions.

Is it a good idea or a bad idea to:

1.       Ask for a business card and follow up with an invitation to become “friends” on a social-network site.

Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

Most social networking sites are social and not professional.   And, most prospective employers are not interested in getting to know you socially.  If they are, allow them to search you out and make the friend request.  You doing so could be perceived as over-confident, over-friendly, or lacking professional boundaries.  It’s a much safer idea to send a very short email thanking them for the opportunity to meet and discuss the position.

2.       See the same job posting (same job, same company, same wording) on multiple websites and respond to all of them.

Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

Most of us don’t like spam.  This could easily be perceived as “spamming” your resume.  If your strategy is to show that you are actively searching for positions with a certain company or a specific job, it is probably a better strategy to, in your cover letter, say that you noticed the ad posting on multiple websites (and list them, if you like, rather than send multiple resumes.  Most recruiters receive numerous resumes from every advertisement and therefore, don’t need to clutter desks or files with duplicates.

3.       Accept a phone call or respond to a text message during the interview, after saying, “excuse me”, of course.

Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

Turn off your cell phone.  Your focus should be on the interview for the time you are there and nothing else.  It is just poor etiquette to allow yourself to be interrupted.  The same goes for the interviewer. 

 4.       Sit stone-faced throughout the interview (don’t smile at all).

Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

It’s important that you show some personality during the interview.  The interviewer is not only trying to determine whether or not you have the knowledge and skills (education, experience, etc.) for the job but, also that you fit with the company’s culture.  As a result, the interviewer is probably going to try to bring out your personality.  You should show your personality honestly.  Use your sense of humour when appropriate, share a story when appropriate, and feel comfortable to laugh, smile, etc.  If you’ve acted like yourself and the culture doesn’t fit you, it’s probably just as good for you to know this as it is for the interviewer to know it.  The key thing to remember is “when appropriate”.  Too much or too little is not good.  Fake laughter, crying, sitting stone-faced, over-enthusiastic, etc., will all probably work to your disadvantage.

 

5.       Use strong cologne or perfumes.

 Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

More and more workplaces are becoming scent-free due to the reactions that scents can cause.  It’s always a risk to apply strong colognes or perfumes to a job interview.  The scent could cause a reaction from the interviewer due to allergies, personal preferences, or as it is against the workplace policy.  Remember “strong” is very subjective and what is weak to you may be very strong to someone else.

6.       Bring a coffee into the interview.

Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

Many interviewers will offer a coffee or a glass of water during the interview.  If you would like one, take it when asked.  Bringing a cup of coffee into an interview may send a message that you are too casual about the meeting, or that you did not manage your time well enough to finish your coffee prior to the meeting.

7.       Involve family/friends in the interview by bringing children because of lack of childcare, having parents “negotiate” the terms of employment, or having family or friends wait in the lobby while you are in the interview.

 Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

The interviewer only wants to/needs to meet you and, they want to know that you have the commitment, maturity and initiative to do the job on your own.  Your family and friends should not be involved in your work activities at all.  They should not be phoning in sick for you, or doing any negotiating on your behalf.  If they need to accompany you to the interview, they can wait in a coffee shop down the street, rather than the lobby.  And, if you cannot arrange childcare, then you need to figure out how to deal with that problem.  Bringing children to an interview is never a good idea.

8.       Print your resume on odd-sized or coloured paper or coloured fonts.

 Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

While some would argue that using colours and different sizes helps you “stand out” in the bunch, it also makes it more difficult to file, print and photocopy – all things the interviewer is probably going to want to do with your resume.  Letter sized paper and black and white print is always the best.  See our previous blog on how to make your resume or cover letter stand out for better ideas than odd-sized or coloured paper and coloured fonts.

9.       Ask the question, “Can you tell me what your Company does?”

 Our Opinion:  Bad Idea

You should have done your homework and should know exactly what the Company does before you even applied or, at the very least, before going in for the interview.  To ask a question like this shows a clear lack of preparation for the interview.

 All of these have happened during interviews we have been involved with and, yes, we know that they were all “bad ideas”.  Next time, we’ll print some good ideas.

You’ve seen it on TV cop shows over and over again, and the truth is, it really can work.  It is the “Good Cop: Bad Cop” routine.   One of our Associates recently used the “Good Cop:  Bad Cop” routine successfully when he worked with the Loss Prevention Department of one of our clients to investigate the disappearance of some cell phones that were being shipped, via our client, to a customer.

Our client, a shipping company, noticed that a few cell phones had gone missing from a fairly large shipment of cell phones.  When the Loss Prevention department was alerted, they knew that it wasn’t going to be a very challenging job to find the cell phones and then trace the trail back to the warehouse.  What they didn’t count on was the lack of cooperation of the first, and only, employee that they were able to trace the cell phones to.

The Manager of Loss Prevention knew that when the cell phones were activated, it would be easy to trace the phone to the “owner”.  A few weeks after the disappearance of the cell phones, the first phone was activated and the Manager of Loss Prevention, along with the local police, headed to the house of the person who activated it.  It turned out that the “owner” was the grandmother of an employee of the shipping company and, she had been given the cell phone as a birthday gift by her grandson.   So much for the arduous task of tracing the cell phone back to the shipping company – the grandson was a direct link.

The Manager of Loss Prevention asked our Associate to sit in while he interviewed the grandson, since the shipping company was unionized.  The grandson was very uncooperative during the interview and claimed over and over again that he was sold the cell phone while at a staff party but, because he was drunk, he could not remember from whom he purchased it.  Despite pressure from the Manager of Loss Prevention and, some “in-your-face” tactics, the grandson/employee was not forthcoming with any information and the Union Representative was becoming frustrated with the process, so after about 45 minutes of fruitless questioning, our Associate asked for a break.

The Manager of Loss Prevention and our Associate left the room and discussed strategy for continuing the questioning.  They decided that the Manager of Loss Prevention would continue with the high pressure, in-your-face tactics (Bad Cop), while our associate would act like he was concerned with the tactics and try to pull the Manager of Loss Prevention back (Good Cop).  Eventually, the Manager of Loss Prevention would get so angry and frustrated that he would storm out of the room, threatening to call the police and have the grandson/employee charged with theft and removed from the premises in handcuffs.

Our Associate and the Manager of Loss Prevention returned to the interview room and resumed the questioning using the “Good Cop:  Bad Cop” strategy for about 30 more minutes.  When the Manager of Loss Prevention stormed out of the room, our Associate followed, but returned shortly afterwards and said, “He is very angry.”  He then sat for a while in silence as if he was thinking.  Eventually, he said to the employee, “I’ve got to tell you, from sitting back and just listening, I really don’t understand what you’re doing here.  You’re willing to possibly go to jail to protect someone else.  I don’t get that.”  He then continued, “I think you’re pretty sure that you’re caught here, right?  You know that you’re caught with some property that was stolen from the company and it’s likely that you’re going to lose your job, right?  It’s also likely you could be charged with theft and have a criminal record which could impact you for some time to come.”

The employee nodded. 

Our Associate continued, “So, knowing that you’re probably going to lose your job, and you could potentially go to jail, I don’t understand why you’re protecting someone else.”

The Union Shop Steward replied, “What are you getting at?”

Our Associate, in a calm, ’supportive’ voice said, “Listen, if you stop protecting whoever it is you’re protecting, I’m pretty sure I can use my influence to allow you to keep the police out of this.  I know that you’re still probably going to lose your job but, I can probably make it so that going to jail or getting a criminal record is not a factor.  But, to do that, I need to know that you are going to give us the information that you’re currently withholding.  Is that something you would consider?”

The Union Shop Steward asked for a moment and, our Associate said that during that time, he would speak to the Manager of Loss Prevention to see if he could persuade him to leave the police out of the situation.

When our Associate returned, the Union Shop Steward said that, if we agreed to avoid a criminal record or jail, the employee was possibly willing to share some information.  Our Associate said that, as long as the information was truthful and lead to the resolution of this theft then he would use his influence to get the Manager of Loss Prevention to agree.

The grandson/employee gave the name of a second employee he purchased the phone from.  The other missing phones were traced to the second employee and, the theft was solved.  The employee/grandson was terminated, without a grievance and did not face criminal charges, as the second employee did.

The Lesson:

Good Cop:  Bad Cop worked in this case, because right from the start our Associate was not involved in any strong-arm tactics during the questioning.  Our Associate just sat, listened and took notes while the Manager of Loss Prevention carried out the questioning.  While the Good Cop:  Bad Cop strategy wasn’t decided upon at the onset, the Manager of Loss Prevention and our Associate took on the good/bad roles from the onset.  When they later decided to use the strategy, their roles were already established and the other players had “bought” into the roles.  Our  Associate had already been accepted as the ‘calm and supportive’ one.

Like the lessons in our last two blogs (Investigation Poker), you need to choose your investigation strategies carefully, and on a situation-to-situation basis.  If you play your cards right, and don’t take the same strategy over and over again, your chances of success increase because you keep the other players guessing.  Just like poker!

Last week we told you about a time when one of our Associates was investigating a case of employee misconduct and took a chance by “bluffing”.  This week, we’re going to tell you about another investigation where our Associate chose to show his cards very strategically.

Our Associate was called to assist in an investigation to determine if two night shift employees, while on duty at the time, engaged in sexual activity in the office boardroom.  The two employees had been interrupted in the act by the cleaning lady.  The interruption was so brief that the employees were not sure if they had been caught in the act and, the cleaning lady, being a new immigrant was very afraid of getting into trouble and, other than reporting the incident was very reluctant to get involved in the investigation or to be a witness during any kind of “hearing”.

Upon reviewing security video it was apparent that the two employees, about five minutes apart, left their work stations and walked through the administration area of the office in the direction of the board room.   Shortly after that, the video showed the cleaning lady walking towards the board room and then, moments later, quickly walking away from the board room.  Shortly thereafter, the two employees walked through the administration area coming from the direction of the board room and, returned to their work stations.

The video evidence, combined with the cleaning lady’s report seemed like it was pretty conclusive but, interviews with the employees were still required.  Both employees were called in for interviews and one was asked to wait while the other employee was interviewed.  During the interview of the first employee, the Operations Manager decided to play all his cards at one time and presented the employee with the cleaning lady’s report and what was seen on the security video.  Presented with the evidence, the employee, who happened to be the site’s First Aid Attendant, replied that “the other employee reported to him that he may have gotten a chemical burn and felt a burning sensation on his inner thigh and they went to a private area to check it out.  After removing his pants and looking at the area, it turned out to be nothing and the burning sensation went away after a few minutes and they returned to work.  No report was completed as it turned out to be nothing”.

No one involved in the interview believed the employee (even the union that stated, off the record, that it was a “good story”) but, with the evidence at hand, it was a plausible reason for what the cleaning lady saw. 

Our Associate asked the Operations Manager if he could take the lead with the questioning of the second employee and, decided to take a different strategy.   The line of questioning was as follows:

Associate (A):    “I want to talk to you about an incident that you were involved in during work time last night; an incident that could be workplace misconduct.  Any idea of what I am talking about?”

Employee (E):    “No.”

A:                            “It was an incident that occurred at around 11:20pm last night.  Any idea of what I am talking about?”

E:                            “No.”

A:                            “It was an incident that took you away from your work station for about 15 minutes.  Any idea of the incident I am referring to now?”

E:                            “No.”

A:                            “It involved you and David Smith (not real name).   Any idea yet?”

E:                            (feigning confusion) “No.”

A:                            “It took place in the administration area.  Any idea?”

E:                            “The admin area?  No.”

A:                            “I have security video of you and David Smith leaving your work areas and walking through the administration area towards the boardroom at about 11:20pm last night.  Does that ring a bell?”

E:                            “Oh yeah.  We were just taking a break and talking.”

A:                            “Nothing else?  Just talking?”

E:                            “Yes.  It was really nothing.  That is why I couldn’t remember.”

A:                            “Did it involve the use of any first aid supplies or any first aid treatment?”

E:                            (confused) “No.  We were just talking about movies and stuff.”

A:                            “So neither of you were injured or thought you were injured?”

E:                            “No.”

A:                            “You were interrupted during the (wryly) ‘conversation’ do you recall that?”

E:                            “Oh yeah.  Someone opened the door and then closed it.”

A:                            “Do you recall having your pants down at that time?”

E:                            “No.”

A:                            “Are you sure?  Both the person who walked in and David Smith said that you had your pants down at the time.  Why would they say that?”

After a long pause the employee admitted to the incident, as it was reported by the cleaning lady.

 The Lesson:

When investigating an incident where you have an inclination that there is a good possibility of lying, it is often a good strategy to play your cards (ask your questions) one at a time.  Many people can effectively lie when presented with evidence but, it is much harder to develop a good lie when presented with small bits of evidence one after another.  This is the case for two reasons:

1.  The liar doesn’t have a good enough idea of what is known or not known to develop a good story without, perhaps, providing some unknown information so their inclination is to provide no information; and,
2. After being presented with small bits of evidence and lying about them, the liar may feel overwhelmed as the evidence starts to “pile up” and his previous lies become apparent.

This is a much more effective investigation/interviewing technique than the “bluffing” we told you about last week but, the point of our last two blogs is this:  there needs to be a strategy when you go into an investigative interview.  Make sure you are clear on what you know and don’t know and, decide what “poker” strategy you are going to use prior to starting but, be prepared to change courses quickly based on the cards your “opponent” plays.

Conducting an investigation into workplace misconduct is a lot like playing poker:  Sometimes you keep your cards very close to your chest.  Sometimes you bluff.  Sometimes you just fold.  And, sometimes you’re all-in.

Our Associates have recently been involved in two investigations that went down a lot like a hand in poker. 

We will talk about a situation where we kept our cards close to our chest next week.  But this week, we will tell you about a great bluff that worked out very well:

One of our Associates was involved in an investigation in a warehouse environment.  A warehouse employee with a history of being disruptive and resistant to authority was upset with a directive given to him by the Lead Hand on the shift.  The employee waited until the Lead Hand left the warehouse and was doing some work in a delivery truck and, followed him in order to confront him.  The confrontation led to the employee punching the Lead Hand. 

The subsequent investigation resulted in two very opposite stories.  The Lead Hand saying he was punched in the cheek by the employee who was angry that the Lead Hand would not adjust his directives as the employee desired and, the employee saying that this absolutely didn’t happen.  There were no witnesses however, two friends of the employee stated that he did not leave his workstation at all during the shift.

The Lead Hand had a large bruise on his cheek and, the credibility of the employee and his two friends were questionable based on their previous work history.   It seemed pretty clear that the Lead Hand’s story was accurate but, the investigation was not yielding any clear evidence to support it.  And, the union was standing firm that it would not accept any disciplinary action with the employee unless there was clear evidence of the misconduct.

As a result, our Associate decided to try a bluff as a last resort.  After a lengthy interview with the employee (with the Union Representative present) our Associate took a large chance and took the investigation in the following direction:

Associate (A):    “You understand the importance of you being completely honest during an investigation like this, don’t you?”

Employee (E):    “Yes, absolutely.  And I am telling the truth.”

A:                            “And you understand that, if it is determined that you are lying, the consequences of dishonesty could be very serious?”

E:                            “Yes and, I told you I am telling the truth.”

A:                            “So you are being completely forthright and honest when you say that you did not hit the Lead Hand.”

E:                            (with exasperation) “Yes!”

A:                            “You know that we have security cameras throughout the warehouse and work yard, don’t you?”

E:                            “Yes.”

A:                            “So knowing that we have looked at that video, is there anything that you have told us that you would like to change because you have not been honest?”

E:                            “Nothing.”

A:                            “And based on our conversation about the importance of honesty, there is still nothing that you would change in what you’ve told us?”

E:                            (hesitant) “No.”

A:                            “OK.  We will have to review the video again but, if I remember correctly from reviewing it previously, I think that there was evidence that you have not told us the truth and, that concerns me a lot seeing as you understand the importance of being honest.  So, before I review the video again, I would like to ask you one last time, have you been completely honest with us?”

Union Rep (U):  “May we have a moment alone please?”

A:                            “Yes.  Take your time we will wait here”

The Union Representative and the employee leave the room and return after about 5 minutes. 

U:                           “The employee has something to say.”

E:                            “I’m sorry, I have lied.  I did hit the Lead Hand.  I knew it was wrong to lie but, I thought I’d lose my job if I did.  But, I would like to be honest with you now.”

The employee was immediately suspended and subsequently terminated.  While there was security video, there was no video that would prove that the employee hit the Lead Hand.  The only evidence to cause any question to the employee’s story was video of him leaving his work station for about 10 minutes.  Our Associate took a huge chance and bluffed and it worked out in his favour.

The Lesson:

This is not a strategy that we would recommend very often.  The situations where you can bluff like this are few and far between and, you have to ensure that your bluff is not a lie.  In this case our Associate did three things correctly, which lead to a successful bluff.

1. He knew that everyone knew there were security cameras but, that neither the Employee, nor the Union Representative would know what was/was not caught on the cameras.  So the bluff was one that could easily be perceived as real;
2. He allowed the Employee ample time to tell the truth and, ensured that everyone was aware of the importance of being forthright and honest during an investigation.  That way, the severity of lying and the consequences of such, were fresh in the employee’s mind;  
3. He worded the bluff in such a way that it was not a lie.   He never said that the video did show evidence of the misconduct.  Rather, he said it may show evidence.  That way, if the employee and/or the union called the bluff then, there was no lie.

If you are going to bluff, make sure that your bluff is easily perceived to be real and don’t lie.  Lying will reduce your credibility if you are caught.

During the recruitment process, your resume may only get about 2 or 3 minutes of the hiring manager’s time to stand out and be placed into the “maybe” pile of resumes.   Getting your resume into the “maybe” pile may be the biggest hurdle for a job seeker.  That is the step of the recruitment process where a hiring manager or recruiter must sort through, perhaps, 100s of resumes for one job.   If your resume makes it into the “maybe” pile then, it will be looked at more carefully to determine the potential fit for the job; if it doesn’t get into the “maybe” pile, it may never be looked at again. 

So, how do you make your resume stand out?

There’s no simple answer to that question because, every hiring manager or recruiter has his/her own personal style and preference for resumes and cover letters but, whenever we are asked for advice on how to make your resume and cover letter stand out, we offer one piece of advice:  Try to mirror the style and wording of the job posting.   The job posting is often written by the hiring manager or recruiter who is receiving and screening the resumes.  If you can tailor your cover letter and resume to closely mirror the job posting then, there is a good chance you’re tailoring it to the style or preference of the hiring manager.  To mirror the job posting consider the following:

1. Selecting font – use the same font and size of font as the job posting;
2. Bolding, underlining and italics – use bolding, underlining and italics in the same instances, frequency and/or sequences as the job posting.  For example, if there is no italics in the job posting then, avoid italics in your resume or cover letter; 
3. Spacing/Sectioning/Titling – use spaces, sections and titles in a similar fashion as they are used in the job posting.  If the job posting has a lot of “white” space, make sure your cover letter and resume has a lot of “white” space;
4. Wording and phrasing – see below.

The most important way to mirror the job posting, however, is with the words or phrasing; especially when outlining your qualifications or competencies.  Below is a great example of how to do so.  The first column lists qualifications or competencies taken directly from the job posting – using the same words/phrasing.  The second column is your example of how you possess that qualification or competency.

Required Skill/Qualification	Proof of Competency
Bachelors Degree or equivalent	Bachelor of Business Administration from QRS University.  Graduated with honours, May 2001.
Direct supervision of employees	Directly manage a team of ten (10) Supervisors who direct the activities of 260 employees.  Sixteen (16) years experience managing people.
Financial management	Development of a $5,500,000 annual operating budget and managing the budget to ensure that expenditures are within budgeted amounts.  Have never exceeded budget.
Collaboration skills and relationship building	Ongoing relationships with hospital administrators/ managers, union representatives, suppliers, etc.
Strategy development	Member of senior management team during economic downturn, requiring cost-cutting measures.  Developed strategy to change structure of operating team.
Logistics	Scheduling of 260 employees keeping in mind budget requirements, client requirements and collective agreement requirements.  Ensuring that supplies and equipment are available for operations as required, and expenditures are kept within operating budget.
Communication Skills	Able to communicate and engage a very diverse and multicultural workforce.  Approximately 80% of workforce are new Canadians.
Training	Company subject-matter expert on Employee Engagement programs.  Responsible for training all other Managers and Supervisors.

 

 There’s no guarantee to make the first hurdle to the “maybe” pile but, mirroring definitely won’t hurt.

The Background

One of our clients, a medium sized non-profit organization, had a Fundraising Department that consisted of a three person team; a Manager, a Coordinator and an Administrator.  The Manager had been in the position for five years, the Coordinator for three years, and the Administrator less than a year.  The organization’s major fundraising event occurred in June every year, which was the major responsibility of the Manager.  The following is the sequence of events that lead to a difficult decision for the leaders of the organization, keeping in mind that the major fundraising event occured in June:

December:         The Coordinator resigns;

January:               The Coordinator is replaced;

January:               A strategic decision is made to create a new Director position to lead the team and build new sources of revenue and programs to raise funds;

February:            The search for the new Director begins;

February:            The Manager resigns – a decision is made to allow the new Director, when hired, to be involved in the hiring of a new manager.  Recruitment focuses on hiring the Director;

March:                  Hiring a Director proves to be a challenge.  It appears a new Director won’t be in place in time to help with the coordination of the fundraising event in June;

March:                  The new Coordinator and the Administrator work very hard to pick up the slack left by the Manager.  The Administrator takes on the bulk of the event planning duties for the June event.  Both do a very good job.

April:                     The Coordinator and Administrator show signs of being overwhelmed with the workload, so the organization hires two part time employees to assist with the workload;

April:                     (6 weeks prior to the event) The Administrator notifies the organization that he is considering a job offer but would rather stay with the organization.  However, in order to stay, he will require a 50% pay increase.  The recruitment efforts for the Director has not produced any candidates who are a suitable fit.

The problem:     With an already short-handed team who has only six weeks left until the major fundraising event, should the organization give into the pay demands of an employee who is doing a good job, has picked up the slack of others, but is demanding a pay raise that is clearly unmanageable for the organization, or should the organization give into the demands in order to not jeopardize the upcoming fundraising event?

The decision:     The organization decided to make  a very reasonable offer to the employee, while ensuring that the overall compensation strategy and internal pay equity was not impacted.  The offer, which included a promotion in title and responsibility, however, was closer to a 20% increase, rather than the 50% increase that was demanded.

The rationale:    Giving into the demand could cause hardship to the organization in the following ways:

1. It would put the Administrator at the 98^th percentile of the external pay scale for similar positions.  The organization’s compensation strategy was to keep pay between the 60^th and 65^th percentile for similar external positions;
2. Due to funding restrictions, no other positions were given an increase in the same fiscal year.  Giving a 50% increase to one employee would seriously impact internal pay equity;
3. The morale of other employees could be negatively impacted if they became aware of the increase for one employee and not any others;
4.  Other employees, if they became aware, may decide to make similar demands.

In short, the short term risk of losing a valuable employee at a key time was determined to be less than the long term risk to the organization if the pay raise was given.

The result:          The employee did not accept the offer for the promotion and a pay increase, resigned and took the other job offer.

The outcome:    (for the organization) The organization hired a contractor to take over the last six weeks of organizing the major fundraising event.  The event, while the fundraising results were slightly under the target, was a success given the circumstances in the six months prior and the comments from all the participants.

                                (for the employee) The employee later made a notation on his Facebook page that he was not enjoying his new job, but was still surprised that the organization did not meet his demands, considering it was short-staffed leading up to the major fundraising event. 

The lesson:         (for the organization) Stick to your compensation strategy, even when confronted with an employee who takes advantage of opportunistic circumstances.  The long term risk of losing a valuable employee who is making an outrageous, opportunistic demand could be much more damaging to the organization than the short term pain of replacing the employee.  There is almost always a way to recover from the loss of one employee.  Giving into the demand may cause a greater loss, in terms of morale, productivity, or turnover.

                                (for the employee) Make sure you are realistic with your demands.  Almost no one is irreplaceable.  And, consider the impact of opportunistic pay raise demands on your long term relationship with the organization.  Does making a demand of a pay raise at an opportunistic time, with the ultimatum of resigning if you don’t get it, send a positive or negative message to your employer?  If you are a valuable employee, the organization is probably going to do its’ best to keep you, regardless of whether the timing is opportunistic or not.  Remember, it’s not only your paycheque, it’s your reputation as well.

This week one of our Associates was sitting in her office when there was a knock, knock, knock on the door and a face peered in the open door of the HR office.   

 “Do you have a few minutes?” a meek, quivering voice asked from the hallway.

“Absolutely.  Come on in,” said our Associate, motioning for the person to enter the office and take a seat in a chair beside the desk.  “How can I help you?”

“I want to report harassment.” (tears start flowing) “I’ve been putting up with my Manager harassing me for a long time now and I’ve had enough.  I can’t continue to come to work when I am being continually harassed.  It’s too stressful and I need it to stop.”  (tears continue).

“Tell me what happened,” the Associate said as she pulled out a pad of paper and a pen to take notes

That’s the beginning of a conversation that no one wants to hear.  As a Manager or Business Owner, you have an obligation to create a workplace that is free of discrimination and harassment and, when an employee brings forward an allegation of harassment, it puts you in a position where you now have an obligation to ensure that you fully investigate the allegation and ensure adequate follow up.  It would take a few hours to share the steps and tools to conduct a proper investigation and ensure adequate follow up.  What we can do in this Blog, is provide you with the best way to start the investigation with the employee who is making the complaint.

Harassment is a word that strikes fear in Managers and is often used quite freely and incorrectly by employees.  Harassment is any annoying, disturbing or troubling conduct or comment that is known or ought to be reasonably known to be unwelcome by the recipient.  It includes such things as:

• Verbal slurs and name calling;
• Unwelcome remarks or jokes about religion, race, disability, sexuality, age, etc.;
• Threats, intimidation or verbal abuse;
• Practical jokes or other conduct that causes embarrassment;
• Conduct that undermines a person’s self-respect.

It does not include such things as:

• Showing reasonable levels of emotion such as frustration or impatience;
• A Supervisor or Manager giving an employee a directive, feedback or instructions;
• Mutual flirtation or things like a pat on the shoulders between friends.

“Tell me what happened” usually is the start of a long, possibly teary, story of various complaints explained in a very emotional and, often random, manner.  Once the employee has had an opportunity to tell you his/her story the investigation begins.  Step one is to get a clear grasp of the nature of the complaint:  sometimes a difficult task through the tears and emotion.  A great tool to get a clear grasp of the nature of the complaint is one question.  That question (and our lesson of the week) is…

“Tell me the worst thing that your Manager (or whoever is the alleged harasser) has done to you.”

That question helps you understand the nature of the complaint and to determine whether or not the comments or conduct of the alleged harasser could be considered harassment.  It is the perfect way to start, and possibly the end of (if it is not at all harassment), your investigation.

In this instance, when our Associate asked that question, the response was, “Every time I stop working to talk to my friends for a minute, my Manager tells me to get back to work and he doesn’t do that to anyone else.”  With a few follow up questions, the Associate discovered that this employee had, on numerous occasions, been spoken to by her Manager because her productivity was impacted by her socializing.  And, while the Manager’s tone could have been more positive, he was merely giving the employee a directive that he had given to many other employees who had interrupted productivity due to socializing.  The only difference was that the Manager had given this employee the directive more often because she socialized more often.  As a result, the Manager was frustrated and the frustration was evident in his tone.

Our Associate explained to the employee that, while this was not harassment, she would follow up with the Manager about his tone when giving the directive, but the employee needed to take responsibility to ensure that she did not interrupt productivity by socializing.  

Our recommendation to the Manager was to be aware of his tone, since the employee was sensitive to that, and to start keeping notes of coaching, directives and feedback he gives to the employee with regards to productivity so that, if this complaint arises again, the Manager can prove that the employee was not singled out without reason.

Location:              HR Manager’s Office

Day/Time:           Tuesday at 4:10pm

Set Up:                 Throughout the day, the HR Manager (Dave Smith) has been conducting interviews for a Communications Coordinator position.  This is an entry level position for a new graduate of a post-secondary Communications program.   The last interview for the day was scheduled for 4:00pm, but the applicant has not yet arrived for the interview.

 PART 1:

(Telephone rings)

 HR Manager (DS):            Dave Smith speaking.  

Applicant (AA):                 Oh, hello Mr. Smith.  This is Amanda Anderson and I am going to be about 10 minutes late for my interview with you this afternoon.  I just wanted to let you know.

DS:                         Thank you for calling.  You said that you are going to be 10 minutes late and it is 4:10pm now.  Your interview was scheduled for 4:00pm.  So does that mean that you are going to be here any minute or you will be here at 4:20pm?

AA:                         I will be there around 4:30pm.

DS:                         Oh.  So that means that you are going to be 30 minutes late, then.

AA:                         Yes, I’m sorry.

DS:                         May I ask why you are going to be late?

AA:                         I had to drop my boyfriend off at work, and he didn’t start work until 4:00pm.

DS:                         Could you have not dropped him off earlier?

AA:                         I didn’t want him to have to get to work too early and then have to waste his time waiting to start work.

DS:                         So, that means that you’d rather have me waste my time waiting for you for half an hour, right?

AA:                         Well, I figured that you are at work and so it wouldn’t matter so much.

DS:                         Well, unfortunately it does matter.  I have another appointment at 5:15pm.  So, if we’re not able to start your interview until 4:30pm, then we either won’t have time to finish it, or I will be late for my next appointment.

AA:                         Can’t you be late for your next appointment?

DS:                         I’m afraid I don’t want to do that.  So, I guess we’ll have to cancel your interview this afternoon.

AA:                         Cancel it?  Oh.  Well, when can we reschedule it?

DS:                         I don’t think I will have any time to reschedule it.  So, I will wish you good luck with your job search and we will go our own ways.

AA:                         Can’t we just do it today and you can start your next appointment late?  Or we could do it around 3:00pm tomorrow?

DS:                         No, I’m sorry.  I don’t have any other time to reschedule.  So, good luck with your job search.

AA:                         So you’re not going to interview me just because I am a little bit late?

DS:                         Well yes, that is one of the reasons.  However, the bigger reason is because you don’t seem to understand how or care that your lateness may impact other people.  And, one of the values of this company is consideration.  Based on our conversation, you have demonstrated that you don’t possess that value, so I don’t believe that you would be a good fit for the organization.  So, good luck with your job search.

AA:                         May I reschedule my interview for another time then?

DS:                         No.  I’m sorry but, based on our conversation, I feel confident that you are not a good fit for the position.

AA:                         This just doesn’t seem right.  I was considerate to my boyfriend.

DS:                         I guess we will have to agree to disagree whether or not this is right.  So, I will wish you good luck with your job search and we will end our conversation, ok?

AA:                         May I speak to someone else about rescheduling my interview?

DS:                         Unfortunately no.  I’m the only person conducting the current round of interviews for the position.  Have a good evening Amanda.  Good-bye.

DS hangs up the phone and spends about 20 minutes responding to some emails.  At 4:50pm, he packs up and leaves the office to go to his next appointment, which is off-site.  As he is walking through the lobby of the office, there is a young woman entering the lobby.  The reception area is closed, so DS offers his assistance to the woman entering the lobby.

PART 2:

DS:                         The receptionist has left for the day and there are very few people left in the office, so may I help you?

AA:                         Yes, I am here to see Dave Smith.

DS:                         I am Dave Smith.

AA:                         Oh, hi Mr. Smith.  I’m Amanda Anderson and I am here for my interview.

DS:                         I’m sorry.  I’m on my way out to my other appointment and I told you I did not have time to conduct your interview.

AA:                         But I am here now?!

DS:                         Yes, you are.  But I am leaving now.  I’m sorry, but I will not be having an interview with you.

AA:                         But I am here for my interview?!

DS:                         Amanda, your interview was scheduled for 4:00pm.  It is now 4:50pm.  And, I made it very clear that I would not be conducting your interview.  I have another appointment in 25 minutes and I must leave.

AA:                         When can I do an interview then?

DS:                         With me?  For this job?

AA:                         Yes.

DS:                         Never.  Had you shown up on time, or had a reasonable excuse for being late, and had you shown some consideration for others, I may have rescheduled your interview.  But, I’m afraid that based on what I’ve learned about your punctuality, consideration, listening skills, and general professionalism, this is not a good fit for you.  So, you will not be having an interview for this position.

AA:                         I just don’t understand what the big deal is?

DS:                         Exactly!  And that is really the biggest reason why you are not appropriate for this job.

DS holds the lobby door open and motions for AA to leave.  AA stands for a moment stunned, and then leaves, visibly angry.

(There is more to this story – but we’ll give you the lesson first.  That way, you don’t have to read the rest, if you don’t want  to.)

The Lesson

Throughout our life we learn three things:  Knowledge, skills and attitudes.  Knowledge is facts and concepts; Skills are performable actions; Attitudes are values and beliefs.  On the job, an employee demonstrates all three and, while knowledge and skills will likely increase or improve as the employee gains more experience, attitudes will most likely be best demonstrated during the selection process and the subsequent probationary period.  Those are the times when the employee will be on his/her best behaviour.  Attitudes usually govern how we behave.

For example, all employees know that they should always be at work on time (that is common knowledge) but, some employees continually show up for work late.  That is because they don’t possess the proper attitude towards punctuality.  And the attitude has governed their behaviour, even though it contradicts the knowledge they have.

In this case, Amanda demonstrated a negative attitude towards punctuality and consideration for others.  It is highly likely that she knew that she should show up for the interview on time, so she had the knowledge.  Knowing that her attitudes will be best demonstrated during the selection process, DS quickly realized her actions proved that she didn’t possess the desired attitudes and made the decision that she wasn’t a good fit for the job right away.

Our Advice 

If an applicant shows an undesirable attitude during the selection process, she/he’s probably a poor fit, so don’t hire him/her.  If a new employee shows an undesirable attitude during the probationary period, seriously consider cutting your losses early, rather than increasing your potential liability if you allow him/her to complete the probationary period.  Remember, attitudes will usually never be demonstrated better than during the selection process and the probationary period, so watch for them during those times.            

Now we continue the story…

PART 3:

DS arrives for work the next day and notices that he has a voice message on his telephone.  The voice message asks him to telephone Mr. Anderson.  So, DS dials the number and here is the conversation:

DS:         May I speak to Mr. Anderson please?

MA:       This is Mr. Anderson (MA).

DS:         Hi Mr. Anderson.  This is Dave Smith and I am the Human Resources Manager at ABC Company.  I am returning your call.

MA:       Thank you for returning my call.  I was phoning to reschedule the job interview you cancelled with my daughter yesterday. 

DS:         (not yet relating this call to the incident the previous afternoon) I’m sorry, I’m not sure what interview you are referring to?

MA:       Well, let me refresh your memory.  You had an interview with my daughter Amanda yesterday, and when she showed up for the interview you just left and told her she wasn’t suitable for the job without even interviewing her.

DS:         Oh yes.  I know the situation you are talking about.  Yes, you are correct, however there is one major detail that you may not be aware of.  Your daughter arrived for interview almost 50 minutes late.

MA:       Yes, I was aware of that Mr. Smith.  I’m also aware that she did telephone you to inform you that she would be late.

DS:         Correct, but with a very poor excuse.

MA:       The excuse shouldn’t matter.  She did call to tell you she would be late.

DS:         Mr. Anderson, I have explained to your daughter what her actions demonstrated to me as a prospective employer.  I’m sure we both have better things to do than to rehash this situation again. 

MA:       I have nothing better to do than to get my daughter this job.

DS:         Unfortunately, you won’t be able to do that.  Your daughter has already lost this job.

MA:       She has lost the job based on discriminatory hiring practices, and that is illegal.

DS:         May I ask how this is discriminatory?

MA:       You are prohibited from discriminating against people who have family responsibilities.  She had to drive her boyfriend, who could be considered a legal partner, to work.  And if she dropped him off too early, he would be inconvenienced.  You discriminated based on family status.

DS:         I’m sorry Mr. Anderson.  Clearly our opinions of the situation are quite different, as are our understandings of what constitutes discrimination based on family status.  I will not be interviewing your daughter and she will not be getting a job here.

MA:       So, I guess I will be calling a lawyer then!  You will be hearing from our lawyer.

DS:         That is your prerogative Mr. Anderson.  Have a good day.

(DS never heard from a lawyer)

 Two Other Lessons:

1.  Attitudes are learned by experience and example.  It appears that Amanda learned her attitudes through the example her father set.

2.  When you have a situation like this, make notes after your conversations.  If Mr. Anderson had contacted a lawyer who, for some strange reason decided to take on his case, you may need notes to remind you of the details.  Even though you have a strong case, it’s better to be safe than sorry as a lot of time may pass between the actual situation and when you may need to defend yourself.  Be prepared and don’t be “bullied” when you know you are correct.

Welcome to the first entry of the MC-HRSolutions Blog.   Join us every now and then to read our newest entry. 

The purpose of our blog is to share some of our experiences with you and, hopefully, share some of the lessons we’ve learned or some of our “wisdom” as well.

Regularly, we will post a real example of a human resources issue that we have dealt with.   In order to protect the identity of the people and/or the organizations involved, we will be creating fictional names, but the stories are true.   Some of the stories will be short and some will be long.  Some will be funny and some will be serious.  And, some will be unbelievable, while others will be routine.   All however, are true and contain a lesson that any business manager can keep in mind.

Enjoy and join us regularly.

Mike