A Just Wage or Minimum Wage?

Thanks for your posts in today's online class. Michael Naughton's A Theology of Fair Pay article provides a nice wrap for our compensation and benefits discussion. In this article Naughton acknowledges the importance of the market (contribution) in pay philosophy, consistent with our study earlier this week of market-based pay systems. The market imperative carries with it the implication that a company can afford to pay the market rate (economic order). Obviously, if a company cannot afford to pay the market rate it will soon go out of business for lack of qualified employees. Then he introduces a new wrinkle: need. Need is essentially what is often referred to as a "living wage". Where all three imperatives intersect -- contribution, economic order and need -- we find a just wage.

While the idea of a living wage might sound extravagant to some, it is simply what is required to cover the essentials: a roof over one's head (a studio apartment for single people), food on the table, access to basic medical care, transportation (which doesn't always mean owning a car), and the like. See the components of a basic needs budget in Dr. Amy Glasmeier's original poverty in America work here. A living wage provides the necessities, and that's about it.

Naughton's story about Reell Precision Manufacturing paints a picture of a real company dealing with real issues (no pun intended), doing their best to honor and place equal importance on each component of the just wage. Many of you agreed with the decisions and actions of the Reell Precision Manufacturing leadership team. As Kyle N. highlights in his post, paying a just wage is a complex business decision. Katie, Andrew B., Dan & Malcolm note that Reell's key to success was a complete redesign of the production jobs and organization design to be more productive and efficient, increasing the value of the work performed, and thus enabling Reell to increase pay over a period of years to finally meet the local living wage. It is important to recognize that this kind of organization/job redesign this also happened to make the job more meaningful, which takes us back to Van Duzer's second intrinsic purpose of business, creating meaningful work that allows people to use their God-given creativity.

So should a just wage replace the minimum wage? Ayanna, Andrew R., Anthony P., Dan, Joel, Kyle and Malcolm came down squarely as supporters of a just wage. Anthony B., Kyle and Malcolm went a step further, arguing that the living wage calculator was setting the bar too low.

If we were to move to a just wage, Ayanna asks an important question: which household size do we choose to set as the bar for a living wage? The MIT calculator provides a number of benchmarks based on household size. While there is no one right answer, perhaps demographic knowledge of your target market for employees can be helpful in determining your benchmark. It's also important to note that U.S. labor law requires equal pay for equal work; pay may not take into account variations between employee commitments outside the workplace. So paying one employee more because they have a family to support would put managers out of compliance with labor law, not to mention be inconsistent with the contribution component of Naughton's just wage model.

But many of you argued that requiring all employers to pay a just wage is not practical. Kayln reminds us of Naughton's economic order requirement: companies must be able to afford to pay a just wage. Not all business models are designed to support a just wage. Yet the minimum wage was recognized by many in this same group as being too low. Kaylyn and Kristen made a case for review and setting of minimum wage at the local and state-levels, rather than by the federal government. Junior offered a creative alternative: an age-based minimum wage, lower for those under 18 years of age, higher for adults.

So, no easy answers here, but Naughton's model does help us to explore the implications of our faith on a central aspect of human resources management: what will we pay our employees? Clearly this is an issue that requires careful consideration when building a business plan. We started our compensation and benefits module noting that compensation philosophy flows from our business vision, mission and strategy, which includes Van Duzer's purposes. Baking just wages into a business plan from the beginning will help ensure we're building a a sustainable business model for both owners and employees.

The Purpose of Benefits

So what is the purpose and role of fringe benefits in a for-profit firm? You explored three different perspectives on this question in today's discussion board.

Lets begin our discussion acknowledging that benefits are expensive. Herzberg cites the cost as 25% of a person's base pay. The cost today is closer to 30%, and maybe more. Yet, as businesses have recognized from the early days of "welfare work" (remember that conversation & reading from the first week of the semester?), offering benefits beyond pay to employees has distinct advantages.

Libby Sartain offers a classic argument for the advantages of fringe benefits. They are a tangible demonstration of the company's care and interest in each individual employee. And at their best, benefits are a differentiator in a company's employment value proposition.

Chewning offers his benefits philosophy from Christian worldview; many of you appreciated his perspective. His argument would be consistent with that of many of the early welfare work proponents, including the Cadbury brothers in England, and Milton Hershey (at least based on his family background). Employers have a moral responsibility to help care for the whole person, not just the body that shows-up for work every morning. Of course, this was one of Henry Ford's frustration. He is famously quoted as saying, "All I need are a pair of hands, but I keep getting the whole person!" (my paraphrase).

Herzberg presents us with a view of pay and benefits through the lens of his motivator-hygiene theory. Those of you who are in or have taken BUSA 390 will recognize this theory.

Figure 1: Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory

The point Herzberg is trying to make in his article is that benefits keep getting more and more expensive because employers are using benefits to achieve the wrong purpose. Benefits in Herzberg's model are hygiene factors. Mitchell begins to help us understand this in his post.

Recall that hygiene factors can result in dissatisfaction if not present, but not satisfaction. Only motivators can bring people satisfaction on the job and result in intrinsic motivation. As noted in figure 1 above, motivators include recognition, opportunity for advancement, challenging work, etc. These factors on the job result in intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivators such as benefits can never do this, though they can cause dissatisfaction if not present.

So what does all of this have to do with Van Duzer and creating meaningful work where people can use their God-given creativity? One approach to providing meaningful work might include designing work with Herzberg's motivators in mind. These characteristics of work do not fully define "meaningfulness" in one's work, but they might give us a good start. Second, leaning on Chewning's argument -- designing benefits to address family needs, or the needs of the "whole" employee -- certainly frees our coworkers from the some of the concerns of this life, enabling them to more completely dedicate themselves to their work and the organization, including using their God-given creativity.

And the end of the day, all of this still costs money, which means our benefits philosophy needs to be clear and then baked into our business strategy and plans.

We'll continue our pay & benefits conversation on Monday with some practical work on constructing a pay range. We'll come back to this complicated issue of balancing our moral commitments with market forces and the needs of the business next Friday in our online discussion of just wages.

Enjoy the weekend, and see you on Monday!

Minimum Wages and the FLSA

The recent move by Walmart to raise entry level wages provides an interesting case for opening our compensation and benefits discussion this semester. Walmart is clearly making this move for several strategic reasons related to employee attraction, retention and development, as many of you noted in your discussion board posts. We'll come back to these strategy issues in the coming days as we discuss compensation strategy. For today, let's focus on some of the basics...

A basic tenet of the Fair Labor Standards Act is who's in and who's out in terms of the law's protection and coverage. Here's the basic premise: assume everybody in your company is covered by the FLSA, unless they fall into one of the specific exemption categories identified by Muller (2013). And if as an employer you are claiming one of these exemptions for a particular employee classification (job), you'll need to be diligent about making that case.

We'll focus on the five white collar exemptions here, but understand that there are a lot more, each with a very specific set of standards that require close attention. See this brief video for an introduction.

The white collar exemptions are: executive, administrative, professional, outside sales people, and computer professional. Note the pay and duties, and sometimes training/education criteria defined in Muller (2013) for each. These guidelines must be carefully followed, and relevant jobs regularly reviewed to ensure compliance. Employees within these groups are classified as "exempt" from the FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules.

So now how do we classify everybody else who is not in one of these exempt categories? Everybody not is an exempt classification is "non-exempt", or not exempt from the FLSA. In other words, the FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules apply to everybody else. This is the group to which Walmart's pay increases apply.

Getting our managerial heads around these classifications is critical; it impacts both our ability to comply with national, state and local labor laws, as well as ensure we have competitive pay practices.

So what is the real minimum wage?

While the FLSA establishes a national floor for wages and work hours, states and municipalities can adopt higher minimum wages and stricter work hour rules, and they are increasingly doing so. Here's a Bloomberg Business story highlighting all of the changes happening in 2015.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-12-29/minimum-wages-to-increase-in-several-states-cities-in-2015

Our Walmart story is not an isolated instance, as several of you noted in your posts. It seems to be part of a larger movement by companies and voters to take independent action in raising base wages.

Reference

Muller, M. (2013). The manager's guide to HR. New York: Amacom.

Peer-to-Peer Social Learning

Congratulations on getting our EU peer-to-peer learning blog off to such a great start! The videos were a joy to watch and learn from. I laughed, I cried (well, I didn't really cry). Based on the comments posted to each video, it sounds like all of the posts would have been genuinely useful to you as first-year students, and many are applicable today!

We can see a variety of production tools and a range of production quality on our posts. Hopefully this assignment gave you a feel for what tools might be useful to you in the future for producing media and building a social learning system. 

This week's social learning adventure brings together the 70/20/10 learning model with Meister & Willyerd's (2010) social learning ecosystem. The video above is from a UK-based company that sells a social learning platform. They provide a nice overview of the 70/20/10 model, supplementing the material we've read in Meister & Willyerd (2010). 

How would you link this week's project with the 70/20/10 model and Meister & Willyerd's social learning ecosystem? Which quadrant does our peer-to-peer learning experiment fit into?

Now that you've taken part in building a basic social learning system, take some time to go back a read Meister & Willyerd (2010) chapter 6 again. How are some of these social learning examples be used at your case study company to support the delivery of the sources of competitive advantage? And if they are not being used today, how might they be used?

Reference

Meister, J.C. & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop, and keep tomorrow's employees today. New York: HarperCollins.

Helping People Win at Work

We saw in today's discussion board how many of Ken Blanchard's Simple Truths (Blanchard & Ridge, 2009) have shown up in our own experiences. The simple truths that have been exhibited most frequently in our own experience are:

• # 1: Performing well: what makes people feel good about themselves.
• # 3: It all starts with performance planning.
• # 12: Celebrate success.

These are the simple truths identified as most frequently missing from our experience:

• # 2: To help people perform well, an effective performance management system must be established.
• # 6: The ultimate coaching tool: accentuate the positive.
• # 8: Deliver reprimands with caring candor.

Blanchard's simple truths are not revolutionary. In fact, they appear to be pretty common sense, yet it's surprising how often they are missing in our workplaces. Your personal stories illustrated how important each simple truth is. You also illustrated how all of these simple truths work together to create a workplace where people win. Austin provides an excellent example of what can happen when one simple truth is exercised at the expense of another. 

Proper, integrated application of all 12 simple truths is important. This proper application is perhaps best captured in simple truth 11: servant leadership is the only way to go. See Kyle B. and Andrew B.'s posts for helpful observations on servant leadership.

The short video above features Ken and Scott Blanchard introducing situational leadership II, the model discussed in some detail in simple truth 4: the biggest impact on performance comes from day-to-day coaching. You'll want to take a few minutes to watch this. The Blanchards' discussion integrates just about all of the simple truths in today's reading. Can you identify the simple truths and their importance to helping people win at work? You'll also want to check-out Katie and Kyle N.'s posts to see the contrast between two very similar performance management systems, and what happens when effective day-to-day coaching is absent.

The video below is from a lecture ken Blanchard gave at BIOLA University a few years ago. It goes more deeply into his perspective on servant leadership and the positive impact it can have on the organization and its customers. It's an hour long, but worth watching. Ken Blanchard is one of the most significant management writers/consultants of our time.

Reference:

Blanchard, K. & Ridge, G. (2009). Helping people win at work: A business philosophy called, "Don't mark my paper, help me get an A". Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Recruiting Using Social Media

This article provides a helpful overview of the advantages and risks associated with sourcing candidates using social media. Check it out.

http://www.talentmgt.com/articles/7162-hiring-in-the-age-of-transparency?interstitial=ST031315

Social Media Basics for College Grads

We won't have time to discuss these resources in detail during class time, so I want to pass them along to you here.

This first video from KPMG provides a very good introduction to managing your online or virtual brand. Check the KPMG YouTube channel for other videos offering excellent career search advice for new college grads.

Social media used by recruiters and hiring managers goes well beyond LinkedIn, but if you're not on LinkedIn, you're not in the game. This video from  LinkedIn provides a helpful overview of how to get started. See LinkedIn's YouTube channel for a rest of this series geared for new college grads.

Abercrombie & Fitch Employment Discrimination Case

View image | gettyimages.com

Abercrombie & Fitch's "look" policy comes under fire in this employment discrimination case currently before the Supreme Court. the heart of the issue is religious discrimination under Tile VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nina Totenberg of NPR provides an excellent review of the core issues in the case and the arguments presented to the Court on February 25 in this story. You can also listen to complete audio of the February 25 oral arguments here, provided by C-SPAN.

A ruling is expected by the end of June, 2015.

Silicon Valley Gender Discrimination Suit

This may be one of the most significant Silicon Valley gender discrimination/sexual harassment cases in years. It went to trial this week.

Walmart & T.J. Maxx Raise Wages

The tightening labor market may be prompting retailers to increase their base pay rates. Here's the latest from Walmart and T.J. Maxx.

Writing Behavioral Interview Questions

This video from lynda.com provides an outstanding summary of writing behavioral interview questions. Take a few minutes to watch it, supplementing your notes from our Manager's Guide to Behavioral Interviewing (posted on Blackboard) and our reading and discussion from Kessler (2013). Pay particular attention to...

• the open-ended construction of the question,
• how STAR can be used to structure the behavior-based interview question.

Keep your writing behavioral interview question notes close at hand for our continuing discussion next week, and for writing part 3 of your case study later this semester.

Reference

Kessler, R. (2012). Competency-based interviews: How to master the tough interview style used by the fortune 500s. Pompton Plains, NJ: Career Press.

Zappos Case

Collaboration. Authenticity. Personalization. Innovation. Social connection. These are the five workforce engagement (WE)  2020 principles identified by Meister and Willyerd (2010) as critical to attracting, developing and retaining high-performing employees and building an execution capable organization. This week's discussion board posts captured lots of examples of how these principles are evident at Zappos, at least based on the videos we watched.

One of the most interesting aspects of this week's discussion were your questions to one another. A number of your questions suggested (or stated outright) partial disbelief that a company run this way can really be positioned for long-term sustainable growth. Here are some of the questions you posed:*

• Where do you draw the line between fun and work?
• Is mixing work and personal life good?
• Is Zappos' casual atmosphere only possible because they hire the best of the best?
• Can Zappos' form of collaboration (or culture) work for all companies?
• Does their personalized environment result in people not taking their job seriously?
• Does personalization really have a place in the job interview?

These are all great questions that circle back to Meister and Willyerd's (2010) definition of the 2020 workplace and their research findings. They also forecast many of the conversations we'll be having over the remainder of the semester.

It would be fun to ask Tony Hsieh these questions... but since we don't have him here with us, take a few minutes to watch the excerpt above from a Stanford Graduate School of Business Hsieh did a few years ago. You'll hear echos of Meister and Willyerd's (2010) WE 2020 principles, as well as some of the answers to your questions. Even better, next time you're in Vegas schedule a Zappos tour and ask these questions of any of the Zappos people you meet (as Hsieh suggests in this clip). And some of your questions won't be answered, at least not yet. We'll continue to talk about those as we examine the six HRM practices in the coming weeks.  :-)

---------

*Special thanks to Kalyn, Raini, Andrew B., Joel and Mitchell for asking critical questions, and to Kristen, Austin, and Jair for their responses!

Reference: Meister, J.C & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop and keep tomorrow's employees today. New York: HarperCollins.

Forces Changing the Workplace Today

Hi all. Thanks for the interesting posts and questions reflecting on Meister and Willyerd (2010) chapter one. You confirmed and demonstrated from your own experience that the ten forces identified by Meister and Willyerd are indeed changing the workplace.

Malcolm helped us out by grounding our discussion with am definition of the 2020 workplace: "An organizational environment that provides an intensely personalized, social experience to attract, develop, and engage employees across all generations and geographies." (Meister & Willyerd, 2010, p. 3). This definition is captures the breadth of the challenge that faces contemporary managers and business owners. This isn't simply a definition of the kind of workplace we would like to have, but the kind of workplace workers will demand and gravitate towards. And this isn't just something that will be happening in the future, but is happening today. And the companies embracing the 2020 workplace today are creating competitive advantage.

Your posts reflected many of the 2020 workplace elements, particularly the social aspects facilitated (or not) by digital/mobile technology and connectivity. Andrew R. illustrated how these issues have altered the way his company does business with customers and suppliers. The key for us in our HRM study is to consider how these technologies are shaping what we do inside the organization as well. Kayln helps us with this as she discusses how digital tools facilitate learning on-the-job. Kyle N. takes this a step further observing the social nature of peer-to-peer learning in his own life. Austin and Mitchell highlight the importance of tacit skills in today's knowledge economy.

Importantly, many of you asked insightful questions about the potential downsides of these forces shaping the workplace.The near-term impact of globalization on local jobs (Katie, Kayln & Ryan), the distraction that can come with ubiquitous mobile technology and connectivity (Ayana, Andrew & Jair), and a lament about the loss hard-copy books to digital and audio formats (Kyle & Kyle -- this position was a surprise to me!).

Central to all of this conversation are age demographics. Today for the first time we have four generations working side-by-side in the American workforce. This creates all kinds of challenges and opportunities for managers and leaders. And the recent recession has overlaid another layer of complexity on the picture (see Katie and Junior's posts about hiring older workers). Going back to the definition of a 2020 workplace, winning companies will be those that figure our how to create a personal yet social experience for each employee in the midst of all this change. See Andrew B.'s post for a nice illustration of how the ten forces can both facilitate and detract from the personal and social nature of work.

Take a few minutes to each the video interview with Jeanne Meister above. She touches on many of the points from chapter one, and gives us a preview of some important concepts to come later in the semester.

Welcome to the wonderful world of HRM! We'll be considering these forces and their impact on our work as people managers and leaders throughout the semester!

Reference

Meister, J.C. & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop and keep tomorrow's employees today. New York: Harper-Collins.