Archive for the ‘Current Events’ Category

3 Actions Marissa Mayer Could Have Taken to Fix Yahoo’s Remote Work Problem

Tuesday, March 5th, 2013

Marissa MayerBy now, many professionals are aware of CEO Marissa Mayer’s decision to end workplace flexibility at Yahoo. Several business experts have given their opinion on the decision by the technology company’s top management. Some agreed with her actions, saying it was necessary to turn around a failing company. Others have said her actions don’t align with positive business practices of today.

CEO is no easy role. Turning a company around is no easy task. Time will tell if Mayer’s decision will help Yahoo or hurt the progress she’s helped the company achieve. Instead of deciding whether her decision was the right one, I’d like to offer Yahoo’s CEO another way to handle the situation. In my opinion, blanket decisions are never the best way to address employee performance issues. The email blast sent from Yahoo’s HR chief is not usually an effective way to deal with a sensitive people issue.

Maybe Mayer wants people to leave without firing them. Maybe she wants to figure out who’s working and who’s not. Maybe she wants to change Yahoo’s current culture. There aren’t a lot of details so we can speculate a long-list of reasons. However, whatever her reason was, this people decision could have been handled better.

Here are three actions Mayer and her team could have made (and can still make) that will help Yahoo address its remote work problem, making the company more productive and successful. These three steps show that businesses can improve without ignoring the needs and wants of your employees.

Revaluate Policies

Many ex-Yahoo employees have come to Mayer’s defense, saying that the company’s remote work policy was too lax. Well, if it’s too lax, management should give it more structure. Company policies should not be set in stone. Make an effort to review your policies on an annual basis. When they are no longer serving their purpose or being ignored by employees, it’s up to the people in charge to update policies and announce the changes through several forms of communication. Some examples include an internal newsletter, a staff meeting or a manager-direct report meeting.

Identify Top and Weak Performers

All employees should not be treated equally. Your top performers should never be lumped into the same group as your weak ones. So one-size-fits-all solutions, like the one that Yahoo’s HR chief sent out, to address poor performers can have a pretty negative effect on the morale of your employees who are always delivering stellar work. Managers, don’t punish your good employees because of the behavior from your bad ones. Instead, look at each employee’s performance individually. If they aren’t doing their work, they don’t get to work remotely—simple as that. An underperformer doesn’t deserve the same perks as one who always overachieves.

Check Progress

Reading the different reports on the situation at Yahoo leads me to believe the company has an accountability problem. How were employees allowed to begin start-up companies while working remotely? Why were people not making their deadlines or delivering on their goals? This is not just an employee performance issue; it’s also a management issue. Leaders do not have to be micromanagers, but they are responsible for ensuring that their direct reports are doing their jobs. Weekly phone calls or meetings to review progress on different projects are integral for keeping your employees engaged and productive. Weekly meetings are also a great way to share your appreciation for your employees, so they won’t feel that their efforts aren’t important, leading them to start a new business on their own.

If you’re having employee performance problems at your organization and need help finding a solution, please call a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: Jolieodell

North Carolina E-Verify Law Starts to Impact Employers

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

The E-Verify system is a federal internet-based tool that allows you to determine the eligibility of employees to work in the United States. As of yesterday, Oct 1, 2012, North Carolina companies with 500 or more employees are required by law to start implementing the federal E-Verify system to verify work authorization for all new hires. You must complete online training and sign a Memo of Understanding before you use the system.

Make sure you are familiar with your obligations under the new law. Review the different scenarios below:

You are a federal contractor or subcontractor with the FAR E-Verify clause in your contract

If your company has not yet enrolled in E-Verify, then you have 30 days from the date of contract award to enroll, and 90 days from the date you enroll with E-Verify to initiate verification queries for employees already on your staff who will be working on the contract and to begin using the system to verify newly hired employees. After this 90-day phase-in period, you will be required to initiate verification of each newly hired employee within three business days after their start date. To meet this three-day requirement, employers may initiate verification of a newly hired employee before their start date if the employee has accepted the job offer and filled out the Form I-9.

Please note that pre-screening of job applicants is not allowed; the system may be used for new hires only after the employee has been offered the job and has accepted. Please also remember that you must continue to use E-Verify for the life of the contract for all your new hires, whether or not they are employees assigned to the contract. For more information on the FAR E-Verify clause, go to

You are not a federal contractor with the FAR clause but want to voluntarily use E-Verify

You must use the federal E-Verify system for all new hires for each hiring site that you choose to use E-Verify. The hiring site is typically where the employee completes the I-9 form. (Note: It may be different from where the form is verified – the verification site.)

However, you can exclude hiring sites if not required by state or federal law to use E-Verify. For more information, go to

You are a North Carolina employer

North Carolina employers will be required to use the federal E-Verify system based on the following schedule: [Note: North Carolina municipalities and counties were required to use it on October 1, 2011.]

  • October 1, 2012 for employers with 500 or more employees (and governmental agencies);
  • January 1, 2013 for employers with 100 to 499 employees; and
  • July 1, 2013 for employers with 25 to 99 employees.

For North Carolina, covered employers are only required to use E-Verify for all employees who work in North Carolina. If you have employees who work in other states but they complete their I-9 paperwork at the North Carolina hiring site, they must be run through E-Verify. If you are hiring sales reps or other employees who will not work in North Carolina, you must consider three things in determining whether you will be required to use E-Verify:

  • Is their hiring site a site in North Carolina for which you are using E-Verify? If yes, they must be run through E-Verify.
  • If not, does the state(s) where they are working require E-Verify and do you meet the criteria? If so, they must be run through E-Verify.
  • If not, is their hiring site a location for which you are already using E-Verify? If so, they must be run through E-Verify.

At a future date, the North Carolina Department of Labor will issue information as a result of hearings on E-Verify to clarify the North Carolina E-Verify requirement. For more information, go to

None of the above conditions apply to your organization

If none of the above applies to you, check the laws for states where you do business to determine if you are required by state law to use the federal E-Verify system.

If you have questions about E-Verify, please contact a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919‑878‑9222 or 336‑668‑7746.

Photo Source: Victor1558

Is Your Company Prepared for America’s Ageing Workforce?

Thursday, April 12th, 2012

Many labor studies and workforce statistics indicate that the American workforce is ageing. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that 4.6 adults will turn 65 each minute during 2012, and by 2025 that figure will increase to eight adults each minute. Knowing that America is graying rapidly, it is surprising that many employers have not prepared for this demographic change when planning for their future business ventures.

Ignoring reports revealing that baby boomers are interested in working past their retirement age and will stay at companies that offer flexibility will leave your company vulnerable to disorganization and revenue loss. Older workers offer a number of benefits to their employers. They are hardworking, loyal and professional. Older employees also boast vast networks of business contacts and extensive experience in their line of work.

Research shows that many baby boomers have no plans to fully retire and are interested in staying plugged into their career fields. If you’re interested in retaining the company knowledge that your older workers have acquired and the strong work ethics they incorporate into each of their projects, make sure you are keeping their needs in mind when you’re planning for company succession and total rewards packages. Listed below are a few items that older workers would like to see from their employers:


Employees approaching retirement age are not interested in working the typical 40-hour week. An increasing number of companies are receiving requests from their older workers to have more flexible work schedules.  Many workers at this age desire a high-quality of life and would prefer to work part time. To accommodate requests, organizations are implementing a number of measures to achieve productive, part-time schedules. Accommodations include reduced hours, telecommuting and job sharing.


Data shows that the US is experiencing a skills gap between available positions and available talent. When older workers retire, they take with them company experience and expertise, which is impossible to replace. For your employees who are contemplating retirement, ask them if they’d be interested in working for the company as a part-time consultant. In this setup, they will be able to reduce their hours and continue to apply their knowledge while your organization still has a valuable and reliable company resource on staff.

Health Plans

A company’s health care plan can be a determining factor on whether an employee decides to retire or stay with his organization. Many older workers may remain in their position longer than they’d like for fear that they’ll lose their health benefits. Feeling trapped in their jobs could result in their disengagement and reduced productivity. Meet with your benefits provider and work to offer a wellness and benefits program that will suit all of your employees, including your older workers.

Don’t lose your high-value talent and the company knowledge they carry with them because of poor workforce planning. If you would like additional information on succession planning or managing an aging workforce, please call a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: skilledwork_org

The 2011/2012 NC Healthcare Benefits & Cost Survey Offers Employers Local Data

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

Employers in North Carolina are curious to know how their benefit plan design and premium costs compare to other local companies. The NC Healthcare Benefits & Cost Survey shares local benchmark data from North Carolina companies, which differs from most benchmark surveys that focus on national data.

CAI and HCW co-developed the 2011/2012 NC Healthcare & Benefits Cost Survey. The state-wide, annual health plan benchmark survey offers North Carolina employers information that is most critical in managing their employee benefits plan.

More than 700 N.C. companies participated in the survey with a majority of participants located in the Research Triangle region of the state. Small to medium-sized employers with less than 1,000 employees nationwide accounted for the majority of survey participants.

The survey also captures organizations from several different industries to give employers multiple views for benefit and policy trends. The top five industry groups include Durable Manufacturing; Professional, Scientific and Technical; Healthcare and Social Assistance; Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental and Leasing; and Non-Durable Manufacturing.

Of the survey participants, 539 employers reported offering a Traditional Plan only, 76 employers offered a Consumer-Driven Health Plan (CDHP) only, and 100 employers reported offering both. Below are key insights from the two different plans.

Key Findings: Traditional Plans

  • 22 percent of employers with traditional plans offer a non-rollover Health Reimbursement Account (HRA)
  • 76 percent of employers with a traditional plan have a PPO plan, 18 percent have a POS plan and 4 percent have an HMO plan
  • Average Health Plan premium cost for single coverage is $5,436.36 per year
  • Average Health plan premium cost for family coverage is $15,595.08 per year
  • Employer contributes to 83 percent of single-coverage premium costs
  • Employer contributes to 54 percent of family-coverage premium costs

Key Findings: Consumer-Driven Health Plans (CDHP)

  • 77 percent of employers with  a CDHP have a Health Savings Account (HAS)
  • 23 percent of employers with a CDHP have a rollover Health Reimbursement Account (HRA)
  • Average Health Plan premium cost for single coverage is $4,701.72 per month
  • Average Health plan premium cost for family coverage is $13,312.92 per month
  • Employer contributes to 85 percent of single-coverage premium costs
  • Employer contributes to 56 percent of family-coverage premium costs

Please find more information on NC healthcare benefits and costs from the local survey here.

Court Case Gives Employers Clarity on Disciplining Disabled Workers for Misconduct

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

The US Department of Labor estimates that almost 50 million Americans have a disability. Laws and organizations, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), work to prevent discrimination towards individuals who have mental or physical conditions that substantially limit one or more major life activity.

Statistics indicate that people with disabilities make up 20 percent of the American workforce. Employers are required by law to provide reasonable accommodations to those who disclose their disability. When employees engage in misconduct resulting from their disabilities, employers often approach disciplinary action cautiously to avoid potential lawsuits.

On April 13, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeals gave employers greater clarification on disciplining disabled workers through a case of first impression. The Appellate Court ruled in favor of the employer that terminated plaintiff Linda Wills, who sued for disability discrimination, in the case of Wills V. Superior Court of Orange County.

California’s Superior Court of Orange County fired Wills from her position as a court clerk in October 2007 because of threats she made to her coworkers. Wills was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1997 and started her job at the Superior Court in 1999. Although she took several medical leaves to treat her disorder, she did not reveal her disability to her employer.

In July 2007, Wills received a work assignment at the Anaheim Police Department. She became angry when she had to wait for workers to let her into the department’s lockup facility. The police department’s employees informed the Orange County Court that Wills swore at them and told an officer she would add him to her Kill Bill list, referring to the popular movie about a female assassin. The employees of the police department described Wills’ behavior as threatening and asked the Superior Court to no longer assign her to their facilities.

Wills claimed that her outburst happened during an early stage of a severe manic episode. Her doctor placed her on medical leave shortly after the incident. Wills sent coworkers, friends and family members threatening, offensive and illogical emails and videos during her time away from work. When her doctor permitted her to return to work, her employer put her on paid administrative leave while it investigated her inappropriate behavior.

At the beginning of the investigation, the Superior Court received a letter from Wills’ doctor stating that she suffered from bipolar disorder. The doctor also said she would not cause danger to her coworkers. The Orange County Court decided to terminate Wills after its investigation for four reasons:

  1. Threatening a police department while performing official business
  2. Threatening and inappropriately communicating with her coworkers
  3. Misusing court resources
  4. Exhibiting poor judgment

Wills reacted to the termination with a lawsuit. She sued under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and alleged that she was fired because of her mental disorder.  The Fourth District Court of Appeals did not deny that her disorder incited her misconduct, but it agreed with her employer and confirmed that Wills’ behavior was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory cause for her termination.

In proceeding cases, such as Gambini V. Total Renal Care, violent outbursts caused by mental disorders were not grounds for termination. This is because courts typically have ruled that ADA protects both the disability and disability-related misconduct unless the behavior was related to criminal activity or drug and alcohol abuse. 

The key difference in Linda Wills’ case is that her threats and violent behavior were aimed at her coworkers, which put her employer on a “razor’s edge,” as the Appellate Court described.  The Orange County Court could have violated the law if it terminated Wills, but it could have also violated the law if its employees were working in an unsafe environment, which the Appellate Court called being “caught on the horns of a dilemma.”

By reviewing the EEOC’s interpretation of ADA, the Appellate Court determined that an employer can discipline disabled employees for violating workplace conduct standards by threatening violence or committing violence against their coworkers. The Appellate Court purposely limited the scope of its decision to protect the disabled from discrimination and also allow employers to protect their staff from threats and actions of violence. Wills and her lawyers petitioned her case to the Supreme Court, but the high court agreed with the Appellate Court’s decision and decided to not review the case.

The Orange County Court’s preparedness with its written policy against workplace threats and violence, as well as its thorough investigation that included several witnesses, helped the Appellate Court determine that Wills’ termination was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

The takeaway from this case for employers is to draft extensive workplace policies that are enforced throughout the organization and record all instances of misconduct. Employers are allowed to distinguish between disability-related misconduct and the disability itself when the behavior threatens a coworker with violence, but solid documentation and supporting evidence is required to prove that disciplinary action is based on nondiscriminatory factors.

Companies should still take heed when addressing misconduct from employees with disabilities. Although Wills provided a victory for employers, suspicious accusations and theorized claims may not be protected by this decision. For additional information on ADA or to discuss your organization’s handbook or workplace policies, please contact a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: Mark Fischervictoriapeckham

A Rising Concern: Discriminating Against the Unemployed

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

JobseekerJobseekers are up against many challenges as America continues to face its worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Their frustrations peak when they see job postings that include language such as, “No unemployed candidates will be considered” or “Only the currently employed should apply.” This type of wording is currently prevalent on several job boards, including the big players, like Monster and Indeed.

Fourteen million Americans are currently unemployed, and six million of them have been without a job for more than six months according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP). Because the number of jobs the government was hoping to create fell below estimates, unemployed Americans who are seeking positions are playing on an intensely competitive field. In its briefing paper that highlights unemployment discrimination, NELP states that there are nearly five unemployed job seekers for each job opening. To make matters worse, organizations that range from hotels, restaurants, advertising agencies, law firms and universities are limiting unemployed jobseekers’ opportunities by only encouraging people who have jobs to apply to their positions.

Why the Catch-22?

With high unemployment lasting for the past three years and unemployment periods averaging up to nine months, it appears that this exclusionary concept is perpetuating the vexation of 14 million Americans.  NELP reports that more than half of the job postings with discriminatory language against the unemployed come from staffing agencies, but other industries, which include white collar and blue collar jobs, also participate in the practice.

Employers and staffing agencies that look for candidates who are currently working cite a number of reasons for barring the unemployed. Some employers place the blame on recruiting firms that they utilize, claiming that they were unaware of the language and tactics they used to attract talent. Others say the discriminatory practice is an easy way to filter the plethora of applications that they receive. Still, others suggest performance reasons, including a deterioration of skills because of their unemployment, as well as the possibility that they were not laid off because of the recession, but because they were unable to do their jobs well.

Finding Solutions

As expected, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is investigating measures it can take to prevent employers from discriminating against the unemployed. Proving that the restrictive language that employers use violates discrimination laws will be hard according to legal experts. Unlike race or gender, the unemployed is not a protected status. However, research is showing that unemployment discrimination is disproportionately negatively affecting blacks, Hispanics and older people. If substantial evidence is found that this language adversely affects various populations, the EEOC might have a case to make discriminatory ads illegal.

The American people are also discontent with employers using discriminatory measures during the country’s most devastating recession. A survey conducted for NELP by Hart Research Associates found that 80 percent of participants thought the refusal to consider unemployed job applicants was very unfair and 10 percent saw it as somewhat unfair. More than 60 percent of those who participated were in favor of proposing legislation that would make it illegal for companies to discriminate against qualified candidates because they are unemployed.

jobseekerRepresentatives Rosa Delauro (D-CT) and Henry Johnson, Jr. (D-GA) introduced the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 on July 12 to address the growing concern of employers’ practices. If passed, the bill would prohibit employers and recruiting agencies from refusing to consider applicants who are qualified but are not currently employed. In April New Jersey passed a bill similar to the US representatives’ proposed legislation, and now it is illegal within the state to use language that excludes the unemployed in job advertisements.

Because unemployment rates have yet to come down and job creation has become stagnant, employers should take caution when considering posting language about an available position.  The EEOC and NELP are only two of many organizations that are analyzing the procedures of companies that discriminate against the unemployed. If your organization would like information on creating fair, informative and correct job descriptions, please contact a member of Advice and Counsel at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: Jared Hatfield, bpsusfp

Utah’s Four-Day Workweek: Could It Work for Your Organization?

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Welcome to Utah

Amid the economic downturn and rising costs of gas and energy, the state of Utah took initiative on reducing its operational costs by mandating a four-day workweek in 2008. The western state required a majority of its state employees to start work earlier andleave later Monday through Thursday to fit 40 hours in four days.  

The federal government standardized the traditional five-day workweek in 1938 with the Fair Labor Standards Act to protect workers from unjust wages and unreasonable overtime. Utah uprooted the traditional five-day workweek to save money and resources. Many state and local governments offer their employees a four-day workweek option, but Utah is the first to make it a requirement for 17,000 of its employees. The state’s ultimate goal for issuing a shorter workweek was to reduce its energy costs by 20 percent in 2015. So far, Utah has reduced its energy use by 13 percent.

Not only have the state’s energy costs decreased, but Utah estimates that because its state employees do not commute on Friday, they have saved nearly $6 million in gasoline. The program also reduced the state’s green house gas emission by more than 12,000 metric tons per year.

Some critics feared that a 10-hour work day could cause employees to be stressed, tired and frequently sick, but program participants discovered different results. Surveys conducted throughout the initiative revealed that there are fewer health complaints, and people are reporting less stress and taking fewer sick days. People also voiced concerns that longer work days could trigger people to exercise less and eat fast food more. Calming these worries, a survey found that only 20 percent of employees feel they eat more fast food, only 30 percent say they work out less and 30 percent say they actually exercise more since the change. Eighty-two percent of the employees surveyed feel content with the government’s new workweek structure.

Utah has saved $1.8 million since the start of its four-day workweek experiment. Operational costs have lowered dramatically and many employees have seen positive health results. Other benefits from the change include: increased volunteerism for outside activities, more time spent with families, and because state buildings now offer longer hours, Utah citizens can accomplish tasks, such as renewing a licenses at the DMV, during later hours.

If your company can provide support for working non-traditional hours and the services that your company provides are not confined by time, a four-day workweek might be a popular option for your team. The strategy, although not feasible for every organization, could prove to be a great solution for cutting costs and increasing employee morale in a down economy.

For more information on reducing workplace costs and strengthening employee morale, please contact a member of CAI’s Advice and Counsel Team at 919-878-9222 or 336-668-7746.

Photo Source: rayb777

2011 Ovation Award Spotlight: The Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc. (ACHC)

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

As the first health care accrediting agency in the world to achieve the international quality management distinction of certification to ISO 9001:2000, the Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc (ACHC) holds a commitment to quality service. The firm stays proactive in learning new quality principles that benefit its customers and employees, and its recent employee engagement program earned ACHC a 2011 Ovation Award in the small employer category (companies with 250 employees or less).

ACHC strives to provide exemplary support to its customers and employees. However, when the company reviewed less than ideal results from a 2008 employee satisfaction survey, its leadership team resolved to implement change.  Because ACHC believes that employee engagement is the central driving point for its business, the agency knew addressing employees’ concerns would be critical to business sustainability and productivity. So, ACHC embarked on its next level of quality: optimal employee engagement.

The company first investigated the reasons for employee dissatisfaction in order to address items from the survey. After uncovering the roots of its employees’ sentiments, ACHC turned to its human resource team and quality assurance department to spearhead the “Total Quality Improvement Initiative.” The program was a comprehensive employee engagement system designed to include every staff member in the planning and execution process for business programs. Based on the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence, the initiative indentified the agency’s strengths and opportunities for improvements in employee satisfaction while also encouraging total workforce involvement and innovation.

The new initiative showed the company that each employee has valuable insight into what customers want, so ACHC tapped into their valuable resources to gain knowledge and ideas that would drive business. Through the program’s whole-team brainstorms, employees learned more about the business planning process and ACHC listened to the ideas of its employees, creating team unity.

Overall, the initiative proved to be a beneficial endeavor for both employees and customers. ACHC understood that developing this program was necessary because of its belief that employees who are fully involved in and enthusiastic about their work provide superior customer service and reach business goals.  The unique approach accomplished three measurable outcomes for ACHC:

  1. Increased employee satisfaction scores
  2. Reduced employee turnover
  3. Increased employee team involvement

Since its introduction, “The Total Quality Improvement Initiative” has expanded, and regular cross-sections of employees are involved in ACHC’s strategic planning, including choosing medical benefit plans and new facility locations.

With employee satisfaction at an all-time high and overall employee turnover reduced, it is clear that the ACHC staff is fully engaged. Employee satisfaction directly affects customer service positively and yields more success for the agency. ACHC’s dynamic program that empowered and engaged its business process made the company a clear winner for CAI’s Ovation Award in the small employer category. Companies looking to increase employee morale and productivity should consider implementing a similar initiative.

CAI recognizes North Carolina companies for innovative HR/People solutions with Ovation Awards during its annual HR Management Conference in February.  If you’d like to be considered please send a 2-3 paragraph description of your program to  The description should summarize the business need, describe how the solution was implemented, and highlight the measurable and/or forecasted business results.

Photo Source: jModus

Are You Using Social Media for Employee Communications Yet?

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

The post below is a guest blog from Stephanie Clark who serves as the Marketing Coordinator and Social Media Manager for CAI’s employee benefits partner Hill, Chesson & Woody Employee Benefit Services.

Have you seen the social media traffic stats on the night of Sunday, May 1, 2011? While President Barack Obama announced to the world that a U.S. military team killed Osama Bin Laden, Twitter topped 5,000 tweets per second.  Care to guess how many of your employees updated their Facebook status that night? The news spread like wildfire on various social media channels, per CNN’s report, as details unfolded through reputable and highly-followed twitter users.

More and more businesses are jumping into social media to educate consumers and create brand awareness. At the same time, this way of communicating has also changed how organizations approach their own workforce, by offering another method of sending out information. A 2010 Watson Wyatt survey showed the most popular topics to engage employees through social media are collaboration and team building, adapting to change, and promoting health and wellness. On the other hand, for messages around business changes, employees widely prefer face-to-face communication. Social media provides another avenue to engage employees in a way they like to receive information.

Paper memos are a thing of the past. Long-winded emails may be going in that direction as well. Here’s a thought: Try pasting the next employee memo you compose into Microsoft Word and conduct a Flesch-Kincaid readability test. If your memo scores higher than a seventh or eighth grade level, some employees may not understand it. It’s hard for employees to genuinely care about what goes on in your company when information is presented at a level they don’t understand. Keep it simple if you want to reach everyone in your company with the message.

For years now, IBM has engaged with employees through social media, even before they used social media externally for marketing. Companies such as Virgin Media have gone the route of video blogging on a YouTube channel exclusively for employees. Viewers see and hear someone as if they are speaking only to them, and yet a wide audience is being reached.  Also, this offers workers the opportunity for commenting in a public forum.

Who doesn’t like to hold the remote? Like most individuals, your employees probably prefer to control their own communication experience. By asking questions, offering suggestions and learning other employees’ perspectives, they create news that is relevant to them on a level that makes sense. What is a better way to become a true stakeholder? Forums, blogs and social networks are a great way to encourage employees to connect and interact.

If you’re not using social media in your organization yet, internally or externally, it’s never too late to start. Many resources are out there to help you get started. A few helpful links are listed below.

How to create a LinkedIn company page

How to create a Facebook page for your business

How to create a YouTube channel

How to create a Twitter account

How to optimize your Facebook privacy for business

Six non-fluff answers to your social media questions

CAI’s Ovation Awards: 2011 Spotlight

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

CAI has presented Ovation Awards to a number of diverse companies for their even more diverse “people practices” for the past four years. CAI created the Ovation Awards in 2007 to honor exceptional workplaces that have implemented innovative people practices that directly and positively affect their business results. Organizations are encouraged to showcase their HR tactics by submitting a nomination for one of the three award categories, which are separated by size of company: small (less than 250), mid-size (250 to 500) and large (more than 500).

Once nominations are submitted, a panel of HR experts reviews the different programs and selects winners based on whether the companies’ strategies solved an HR or business problem. Some examples of applicable programs include enhancing employee engagement and improving business productivity. Award winners are then announced during CAI’s annual HR Management Conference.

Past recipients of the Ovation Award have included Krispy Kreme (2010, large) for its “Healthy Lifestyle Program,” The Bank of Oak Ridge (2008, small) for its “e-Awards Program” and PPD (2007, large) for its “Employee Engagement” project. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Burt’s Bees and Capitol Broadcasting Company are also among previous award winners.

The panel of HR experts saw stellar submissions for 2011’s nominations, and at the 2011 HR Management Conference, CAI revealed the three companies that displayed outstanding HR practices for the year. The Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC) received the small company award for itsinnovative “Total Quality Improvement Initiative.” For the mid-size company category, Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, won by building a “Strengths-based” organization, and Rex Healthcare collected the large company award for its workforce planning efforts.

To highlight the 2011 award winners’ accomplishments in HR planning and execution, CAI will spotlight each winner in a blog post that extensively details its award-winning programs.  In the meantime, please take a look at past award winners and their presentations here.

We are also always on the lookout for Ovation Award nominations, so if your company has implemented an efficient HR-related program, please consider submitting a nomination for 2012. We will post more information on the nomination criteria and deadline at a later date. Please contact Doug Blizzard at with any questions regarding the awards.

Image Source: Werner Faymann