Everyone in the wellness space should know by now it has grown to be more inclusive to different types of well-being. We can apparently add “acoustic” well-being to this list?

My dad is an architect, mostly because Mike Brady was one on “The Brady Bunch.” But I can’t judge. One of the only reasons I thought I could be a writer professionally is because one- or two-star movies made me believe that was possible. “The Devil Wears Prada,” “How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days” … both movies with female journalist leads named Andie. I was easily convinced.

Anyway, Mike Brady’s protégé recently sent me a rather interesting issue of the Leesman Review from August 2015. The topic? The acoustic workplace. The argument? That the design of a workplace, specifically the acoustics, can have a significant impact on employee productivity and well-being. One op-ed in the issue cited a study by global consultancy Ipsos of 10,000-plus workers that found office workers lose 86 minutes a day because of distractions.

As somebody who is in no way a design and/or acoustics expert, I can’t judge the quality of these arguments but thought they were worth noting and exploring.

First, let’s define what constitutes a poor acoustic environment. According to this report, it could mean a couple different things. Number one: That the office contains unwanted noise or distractions such as the traffic outside or unsettling background sounds indoors, like phones ringing. And No. 2, there is too much quiet. To quote the review:

“By creating quiet you end up with a library, a place where you can hear a pin drop, when someone coughs it shatters the silence, if someone dare speak everyone is listening whether interested or not in the content of the conversation. You know the office is too quiet when people leave the office to make phone calls and this is a common occurrence.”

The solution, on the most basic level, to create an environment of audio comfort is to amplify some sounds (example: speech) while minimizing others (like background noise, traffic). Reaching audio comfort will supposedly increase productivity in the workplace.

From a design perspective, the Leesman Review argues for certain building characteristics, like using materials that provide sound insulation to protect employees from the outside noise. It also argues that since the open office space isn’t going anywhere, you need some sort of collaboration between designers, space planners and someone who understands office acoustics to optimize the space.

Also interesting: This report puts well-being born from acoustic comfort in your office building under the same “holistic well-being” umbrella we’re hearing a lot about now. Everyone in the wellness space should know by now it has grown to be more inclusive to different types of well-being, like financial, mental, psychological and social, along with physical. We can apparently add “acoustic” well-being to this list?

The review featured several stories and major arguments, too many to expand on in this one post, but these were the general points of interest I found. From my own personal experience as a wellness blogger, it’s a nice break to stop thinking about wellness in terms of intangibles (policies, cultures, expectations) and start thinking about how physical space and design could impact wellness.

I agree that office design can have an impact on one’s work to a certain degree, but not necessarily to a dramatic degree. It depends on the noise. The occasional loud construction noises outside the building can be very, very distracting some days, but the everyday traffic noises should just blend into the background.

Part of the conversation I think should be important is: Sure, there are some sounds to minimize and some to amplify, but what about all the noise that’s just there? Aren’t there certain sounds to just get used to? When is background noise just background noise, and when is it a distraction that threatens employee productivity and well-being?

What do you think? Are acoustics really that important to employee productivity (and, ultimately, the bottom line) or well-being? Is this a case of employers needing to design more efficient buildings, or a case of employees have to stop complaining about noise, like the proverbial older couple telling teenagers to turn their stereo down?

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

The post Chattering Colleagues or Sounds of Silence: Which Is Golden for the Workplace? appeared first on Workforce Magazine.

We are going to begin 2017 near where we brought 2016 to a close — gun-owner protections.

Shortly before the end of Ohio’s 131st legislative session,

Eleventh-hour legislative wrangling removed certain provisions that would have elevated “concealed handgun licensure” to a protected class under Ohio’s employment discrimination law, on par with race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, and ancestry. The enacted version of the bill removed these protections, while maintaining employees’ concealed-carry rights in their vehicles.

The question is, does this omission make a real-world difference? Under Ohio law, the termination of an at-will employee that jeopardizes a clear public policy articulated in the Ohio or United States Constitutions, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law creates a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of that public policy.

Ohio Revised Code section 2923.1210 now protects the right of a person who has been issued a valid concealed handgun license to transport or store a firearm inside the person’s privately owned vehicle while parked on employer’s property. Thus, if an employer terminates an employee because the employee is lawfully storing a gun in his or parked car on the employer’s property, that employee likely can assert a wrongful discharge claim.

In other words, S.B. 199 elevates concealed handgun licensure to a protected class in function.

I applaud the Ohio legislature for removing the anti-discrimination protections from this bill. I am concerned, however, that it did not go far enough by leaving the wrongful-discharge loophole in place.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

The post Why It Doesn’t Matter that Ohio’s Concealed-Carry Law Removed Bias Protections appeared first on Workforce Magazine.

Retaining performance reviews is one recommendation for HR in 2017.

By Greg Moran

A new year means new goals, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that HR folks have no problem making lists of important things to do — only to get stifled by budget or resources.

As we look ahead to 2017, we’re watching for trendsetters who have already done the heavy lifting. That way, even small HR teams can keep up with the competition for talent and deliver impressive business results without reinventing the wheel.

To align your efforts with high-impact outcomes for the year ahead, here are the most important trends to follow in 2017:

It doesn’t matter how “established” your HR organization is. Whether it’s big or small, sturdy or agile, everyone in HR is riding the waves of change.

HR has become a strategic player, and that means you’re not just doing transactional work — you’ve also got to find time to add business value, and a lot of it. That’s where we can take a lesson or two from the start-up world.

As Workforce columnist Kris Dunn said in a recent webinar, “People who are best in start-up environments aren’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and do some of the dirty work, along with the high-level stuff.” Here’s his advice for thinking like a start-up: Do fewer things, but do them very well. Make them sustainable, and build from there.

Stop worrying about millennials taking over the workforce, and put down that article on “10 Things You Should Know About Hiring Gen Z.”

It’s tempting to segment the workforce like this, and it used to make sense. But that was before we had sophisticated science and people analytics. Now we can predict capabilities, preferences and motivations of employees at the individual level, rather than use assumptions like “younger generations need flexible schedules” to design companywide policies and career tracks.

Just as Amazon, Facebook and Netflix deliver custom content to the consumer world, trendsetters in HR are making greater use of predictive technology to understand behavioral patterns of employees, and then acting on those insights with tailored programs and interventions.

The annual performance review has been on the chopping block in recent years, and for good reason. Waiting that long to get feedback on anything, especially performance, which determines how we pay and promote people, is completely out of sync with modern business.

But organizations that have killed the annual performance review are now experiencing a void of no data where some data (albeit crude and retrospective) used to be.

Without performance data, there’s no performance management. That’s why the innovators among us are finding creative ways to keep the performance review alive — with some major improvements, like gathering data in real time, and moving from idle performance ratings to dynamic and individualized employee action plans.

Data and automation have rapidly transformed the HR function. If you’ve embraced the HR technology trend, you’ve probably gotten more comfortable wearing your systems administrator hat.

You might also be realizing that big systems aren’t necessarily the best solutions. In other words, a convenient investment (like a big “do it all” system from a single vendor) isn’t always the smartest choice. Why not?

• Big systems come with big price tags — and big expectations. Promises of increased efficiency and seamless scalability had better pan out, or you’ll have some explaining to do.
• Big systems are inflexible and keep you from being agile. You need interchangeable parts so you can add, remove, and optimize your systems without disrupting normal workflows.
• Big systems are usually bundles, like cable plus internet plus phone (but who uses phone service, anyway?). It’s a package deal, and you’re left paying for “add-ons” you don’t want or need.

Savvy HR leaders are opting instead for best-of-breed solutions in different areas, and then integrating them together in a way that enables comprehensive reporting and big-picture analytics.

Greg Moran is the president and CEO of HR technology firm OutMatch. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

The post 4 HR Trends to Put in Play for 2017 appeared first on Workforce Magazine.

The most effective succession plans are owned by the CEO and senior leaders, accountable to the board, and managed by the CHRO.

As companies strive for success in a rapidly changing global marketplace, ensuring alignment of the talent portfolio to changing business requirements is increasingly critical. Succession risk management engages companies to plan today for the evolving, anticipated future.

CEO succession planning has long been a core responsibility for corporate boards. But today, succession planning should encompass many more roles. Talent is a recognized competitive differentiator and generally a company’s most expensive asset. Avoiding talent “churn,” frenetic fire drills that can accompany unexpected departures, and the potential of lost revenue are undisputed business goals. And as business models shift to match marketplace trends and opportunities, succession plans align a company’s current and bench talent to the business needs of today and tomorrow.

While the details can vary, the best succession plans are built on four pillars, focused on mitigating talent risk:

• Opportunity Risk. Identifying pivotal positions most likely to see change in the near future.
• Ensuring that assessment and development practices will provide ready successors.
• Talent Portfolio Alignment. Predicting strengths and gaps around key roles, to keep the talent bench aligned to evolving business priorities.
• Transition Risk. Providing onboarding support and developmental feedback to leaders in new roles.

Importantly, the most effective succession plans are owned by the CEO and senior leaders, accountable to the board, and managed by the CHRO. When a CEO fails to set the tone, succession plans can devolve into a paperwork exercise. Yet it is the CHRO that generally establishes timetables, leads the definition of talent priorities and orchestrates the overall process. Engaging the energy and attention of each management team member is key.

The HR partner elicits insights on changing organizational needs, and ensures quality and consistency throughout the process. Succession plans must be current and viable. If succession plans too frequently are set aside when filling roles, boards and top leaders notice, and the succession process loses credibility.

Engaging the energy and attention of each management team member and the HR partner elicits the deepest perspectives on changing organizational needs. And succession plans must be current and viable. If succession plans are too frequently set aside when filling roles, boards and top leaders notice, and the succession process loses credibility.

Other common missteps include failing to include outside candidates in succession discussions. Including outside talent improves slates and helps to define best in class. Joe Bosch, an Allegis Partners human resources advisory board member, and formerly CHRO of DirecTV, Centex and Tenet Healthcare, says, “The best plans that I have seen incorporate external candidates. This widens the playing field pretty dramatically, and adds to the strength and credibility of the talent plan. This is especially important when considering new business ventures. Outside partners can be helpful in identifying external candidates.”

Succession processes that are bureaucratic or driven solely by HR tend to lose business leader engagement. Likewise, succession management that is too shallow or narrow won’t effectively protect the company from changes in the wide range of pivotal roles. The best plans focus on talent that can be groomed for the top two management tiers.

Business success breeds succession-planning needs. Julian Kaufmann, CHRO of G100 Companies, said, “If your organization has experienced success, other organizations will want your talent and a look at your recipe. Just as in sports, if you have a successful season, you will lose people to free agency. So, you will need a more robust bench than you might expect.”

A few strategies can be instrumental to building an effective succession management process. To set the stage, set expectations that functional leaders and line managers will be net exporters of talent. While any manager prefers to keep the best talent, the organization’s top leaders need to be moved between roles and business lines for the benefit of the corporation. Talent plans must be updated regularly and shared with the board several times a year.

Align talent plans with evolving corporate goals. Jeff Shuman, the CHRO of Quest Diagnostics, says of Quest’s process, “We have discussions with business development about the kinds of businesses we are acquiring. We speak with international about areas of expansion. The R&D folks tell us what kind of innovation is underway. And we look to the future. Today some 20 percent of our business is what we call advanced diagnostics, including genomics, precision medicine and personalized medicine, and this area is growing. With more R&D, more innovation, and even a retailing component, this requires different skillsets than we have been grooming over the years. Our succession plans must address this.”

Pressure test succession plans. Once plans are drafted, Bosch recommends, “Convene senior leaders for scenario planning. ‘If we move Maria to this position, what is the risk? Are we committed to supporting her?’ This type of planning promotes honest and robust discussion that validates plans, or prompts rethinking.”

Kaufmann suggests using third-party consultants to offer objectivity and talent marketplace knowledge. And pragmatically, he adds, “As an insider managing succession planning, you have to survive politically. Can you tell someone about their warts? Outsiders can offer an objective, critical review of candidates, which an internal person might ratchet back.”

CHROs should take an active role during a CEO or C-suite transition. Shuman said, “There can be a lack of clarity around accountability and decision rights, so coordinating a structured onboarding and understanding of board, chairperson and other leadership roles can pay dividends.”

Most important is cultivating a process that insists upon outcomes. A succession plan is a business plan, to be evaluated by its execution and results. Anything less is hardly worth the time or effort.

Mark Streifer is a managing director of Allegis Partners’ Human Resources Practice Team. He previously served in HR leadership roles at Covidien, Invensys PLC, Merck & Co, GE, and other leading organizations.

The post Beyond the Board: Succession Risk Should Be All-Inclusive appeared first on Workforce Magazine.