DO YOU USE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES?
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM? |
| Use of temporary, leased, and contract employees is
a growing part of daily life in many North American
businesses. In fact, according to the American Staffing
Association, 90 percent of companies use contract
staffing services! In 2002, 2.1 million people worked
as temporary employees each day.
Unfortunately, despite the many advantages claimed
for this practice, it holds substantial risks to
employers. They may feel overly secure with their
staffing provider, not realizing they probably share
joint liability with the agency for the behaviors of
temporary workers. In Utah, for example, the State
Supreme Court ruled, “even temporary workers have an
agency relationship with both the temporary agency that
initially employed them and the company that uses their
services under arrangements with the agencies. ”[Kunz v.
Beneficial Temporaries, 921 P. 2d 456 (Utah 1996).]
Special risks associated with temporary workers have
been recognized by sources as diverse as the New
Hampshire Society of CPA’s (“...employers have a similar
obligation to make sure the temporary agencies from whom
they are seeking workers are exercising this “reasonable
care” in hiring workers …”), Britain’s famous MI5
intelligence agency (“...You should have procedures for
assessing the reliability and integrity of those
[temporary employees] you wish to employ…”), and
insurers, concerned about safety risks (“A higher
accident rate is documented for temporary agency work.
“)
So, you are committed to using temporary workers. How
do you protect yourself? Here is a brief outline of some
suggestions from a variety of professional sources:
Conduct a procedures review with your staffing
agency, and document it. Look at application forms,
reference checking, assessments used, background
checking, and interviewing procedures.
Check the agency’s own references—past and current
clients can shed light on how their placements work out.
Insist they use professionally developed, valid,
reliable assessments in the screening process.
Do you think the last point might be going too far?
Consider this: The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac, to most) relies on nearly 40
temporary-staffing agencies to fill a wide range of
positions in their organization. In order to become a
provider, an agency must agree, in writing, to subject
each temporary worker placed within Freddie Mac to a
rigorous background check. Moreover, the temp agency
must agree to pay for the background check!
As Cindy Waxer concluded in "Workforce Management,"
June 2004, “Detailed background checks, computer
security measures and relationship-building exercises
might seem drastic given that the majority of today’s
temporary workers complete their assignments without
incident. But according to Monica Barron, who recently
left her position as research director at AMR Research,
the risk of property and identity theft have raised the
stakes. ‘I don’t think you can be too careful about
really knowing who’s coming into your facilities and
what they are doing,” she says.
It is your money, your business, and your future at
risk; what do you know about the temporary workers who
come and go from your business each day?
Take control of their (your) selection process and
procedures. |
|
| COMPLACENCY IN EMPLOYEE RISKS-WHY WE DON’T
DO MORE? |
| Sometimes, our natural tendencies to believe in
people, to wish for the best, and to minimize the
negatives in our own businesses can combine to make us
complacent, especially regarding risks associated with
our employees. After all, we believe we’ve done a good
job in hiring, we have good people in place, and most
people won’t do bad things. The following collection of
popular myths and corresponding realities may make you
uncomfortable—and that might be a good thing!
Myth 1: We are careful in the selection of
our employees!
Naturally you are, but the majority of employees who
steal are ‘first time offenders.’
Myth 2: We have our own security department!
Last year, a western regional bank suffered a number of
“ski-mask” robberies. When the robber was finally
caught, he turned out to be the bank’s Director of
Security!
Myth 3: Our computer systems have the latest
in anti-hacking systems.
That’s fine, but more than 65 percent of IT crime is
traceable to insiders.
Myth 4: Our cameras and undercover agents
catch most shoplifters.
According to the National Retail Security Survey, 48
percent of merchandise losses are attributable to
employees.
Myth 5: Our procedures are foolproof.
Famous last words. Many of the largest frauds
occur in companies who say precisely this. However
effective the internal control and accounting system, it
is not unbeatable.
Myth 6: We would not want to offend staff who
have been with us for many years.
Thoughtful and considerate, but employees rarely object.
Myth 7: We won’t be badly hurt by isolated
incidents.
Perhaps not. But most large losses are caused by
long-term, ongoing schemes that are cleverly hidden for
years.
Myth 8: We have never suffered a theft by an
employee.
That may be true, but the fact that you may never have
had a fire or a vehicle involved in an accident, does
not prevent you taking out property insurance. The first
loss really hurts!
Myth 8a:We have never suffered a theft by an
employee.
Maybe you have, but you don’t know it yet. U.S.
businesses lose as much as $110M dollars a day due to
employee-related crimes. However, most employee theft
goes undetected.
Even though it goes against the grain and may be
painful—you owe it to yourself, your employees, and
anyone who relies on your business to acknowledge you
are at risk and do what you can to minimize that risk.
An audit of your risks and vulnerabilities may be your
best guarantee of survival.
|
|
| EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN HIRING
PRACTICES—ASSESSMENT AND HUMAN |
| In 2002, a manufacturer conducted a study of the
effects of using the Step One Survey™ (SOS) on its
hiring practices. A summary of this study is included in
the table below and serves as a baseline for evaluation
of subsequent changes in hiring practices.
In fall of 2003, and continuing through the summer of
2004, the company experienced explosive growth in demand
for their products. From September of 2003 to September
of 2004, total headcount increased by approximately 75
percent. This hiring program necessitated a major
recruiting effort, and a consequent relaxation of the
criteria previously applied to the Step One Survey™
scores. At the same time, supervisors were probably more
reluctant to terminate an employee for cause, as they
were often operating with a labor shortage.
Another variable was introduced to the hiring process
in early May of 2004, when a professional recruiter was
added to the HR staff, to conduct hiring interviews. She
made hire/no hire recommendations to managers after her
interview was completed.
Two major questions were considered in analyzing
these data:
- Did the relaxation of Step One Survey™ score
criteria affect early failure?
- Did the addition of the professional recruiter
impact early failure?
Effects of relaxation of SOS criteria:
For the purpose of this analysis, it is important to
note that the effects of the criterion change are
probably partially masked by the labor shortage effects
mentioned earlier. For example, if the effect of the
change was to permit the hiring of candidates with
somewhat lower reliability, it is also likely that
supervisors faced with a critical labor shortage and a
pressing production goal would be more tolerant of lower
reliability in a given worker, as the alternative would
have been an even greater labor shortage.
The standard of comparison in both studies was “early
failure,” defined as failure of a hired worker to remain
employed with the company for six calendar months.
Overall, the six-month failure rate in the previous
study had been 51 percent before use of the SOS
(baseline), and reduced to 29 percent with adoption of
SOS criteria, eliminating from consideration any
candidate with two or more scale scores of three or
less. This process resulted in a hiring percentage of 53
percent of all applicants.
In the current study period, with more relaxed use of
the SOS scores, 78 percent of all applicants were hired.
The six-month failure rate rose to 49 percent, near the
rate of failure when the SOS was not in use. This is a
blended rate, including applicants hired both before and
after the addition of the recruiter interview to the
process.
Within the current study, differences in failure
rates were observed before and after the change in the
hiring process. Of the 411 applicants hired before the
change, 208, or 51 percent, were early hiring failures.
Of the 174 hired after the change, 76 were early
failures, a reduction to 44 percent. It should be noted,
the failure rate dropped by seven percent, even though
the total percentage of applicants hired only dropped by
two percent. Apparently, some benefit was achieved
independent of a reduction in percent hired, perhaps
through better placement.
It seemed likely, if the recruiter’s efforts were
improving hiring success, additional improvement might
be apparent after she had become more familiar with the
company and the task at hand. Analysis of hires
completed after she had been on the job nearly a month,
confirmed this hypothesis. Of those hires, only 38
percent experienced early failure, even though the
percentage hired went up to 81 percent.
Summary of findings:
The data, now spanning three different calendar years
and three different levels of use of the SOS (none /
strict criterion / relaxed criterion), indicate a
consistent relationship between systematic use of SOS
scores and successful hiring. While the recruiter, after
gaining experience, positively impacted hiring, the
simple use of an empirically derived SOS criterion was
nearly twice as effective.
 |
|
| In
response to numerous requests, we are including
below excerpts from Al Rainaldi’s opening speech
underscoring the theme “Go For Greatness” at the
Profiles 2005 Annual Conference. |
|
THE ELEMENTS OF GREATNESS
Today, it is not enough to be the best in your field
or to be number one in your industry. In both of these
instances, your performance is judged against what is
currently considered "the best".
Being great involves more than aspiring to a
currently held level of "best". Greatness requires a
different level of thinking that moves you beyond what
currently exists.
How can we accomplish goals, provide service or
create in a manner that astonishes...not just satisfies?
What, then, is greatness?
For each of us, greatness has its own definition as
it relates to our lives and experiences. Regardless of
how we define it, greatness has certain key elements.
These are: Vision, Belief, Desire, Courage,
Perseverance, Execution and Passion.
Elements of Greatness
- Vision
Can you see, touch and taste your dreams?
Your vision should be crystal clear. You should be
able to describe it in precise terms. It should
transcend the obvious and look into the future.
Take a minute and remove the self-imposed shackles
that limit how far you really see. Take time to dream,
imagine and pretend.
- Belief
This is belief that is beyond “hope”…an
absolute faith in your vision, in yourself and in the
outcome. You have to believe that you are worthy to
achieve your vision.
- Desire
What gives depth and meaning to your life? To
achieve your vision, you’ve “got to want it - really
want it!” This is not “I’d like” or ”I want”…this is a
BURNING DESIRE.
- Courage
Courage is the ability to place your dreams above your
fears. Often, to achieve greatness, you must get out
of your comfort zone into the pain zone. People will
challenge you when you attempt to be different – when
you attempt to be great. No one will care if you do
less – but when you excel, you become a target.
Great work is done by people who are not afraid to be
great.
- Perseverance
In the face of disappointment, setbacks and
barriers...perseverance is the strength to take one
step…and then another...and then another. Greatness is
more about perseverance than strength. Many fortunes,
relationships and competitions are lost because people
quit too soon.
- Execution
At what level will you execute your vision?
Create; handle the details; finish what you started;
refine and improve.
“If your chosen maximum is the required minimum, the
sum total of your life will be mediocrity.”
- Passion
What spark lights your soul? What drives you?
Without passion, life is a series of chores. It is the
passion in your life….that makes life worth living. If
you’re not passionate about the process be passionate
about the result. If you are not passionate about the
result…change your focus.
Never – never confuse survival with success.
Conclusion
Many of us live day to day with unused
potential. We experience greatness in only small,
peripheral ways in our lives. But in order to experience
greatness regularly, consistently, almost daily in each
of our lives, it requires enormous personal security,
openness, creativity and a spirit of adventure.
It is not enough to aspire to greatness in only one
area of your life. When you truly aspire to greatness,
it gives more depth and meaning to all aspects of your
existence...in your career, in your relationships and in
your dreams.
But there is a caveat. Perhaps Winston Churchill said
it best, “The price of Greatness is Responsibility.”
To be truly GREAT - live like you’ll never die and
work like there’s no tomorrow. |
|
"The road to happiness lies in two simple principles: find what
interests you and that you can do well, and put your whole soul
into it."
~ John D. Rockefeller, III
|