Eye on the Workforce

For various reasons, organizations are now increasing their use of non-employees to get work done. A report (presentation, may need to register) from a recent workforce trends study reveals that organizations that do so can improve how they manage this function. The report can also help you avoid problems and act to get the most from a system  serving up more consultants, contactors, contingent workers to work in your projects.

At least one problem was discovered:  Even though efforts are made to integrate non-employees into work processes, there is a common problem with alignment. What's behind this? Organizations manage non-employees  primarily to reduce costs then to maintain availability. On the other hand, customers/clients (internal and external) Are looking for good quality first and cost is rated farther down their list. Very few organizations are making any effort to fix this disconnect. That can leave you with inadequate candidates to fill your open positions.

How do you manage the disconnect even if you are not in supply management?

• Manage worker procurement using your own tighter controls over worker selection, where you have more control.
• Research the key capabilities of the roles you need to fill.
• Define these capabilities very clearly to those who are submitting candidates for you to evaluate.
• Select the quality you need. Keep forcing the managers of the candidate supply to go back to the pool when you do not get the quality you need. Stand firm, the success of your project is at stake!
• If you are not getting the quality of candidates you require over the long term, work with those making decisions on worker contracting to help them improve the process. They may not be aware of the seriousness of the disconnect and may be amenable to the relatively minor improvements necessary to make significant improvements.

They'll thank you later.

Got troubles finding the high quality candidates you need? Let us know.

Company benefits are great when they allow you to take some days off to take care of a very sick child or an ailing elderly parent or to have a baby. There is a catch, though. In recent years, studies have shown that those who take advantage of these benefits - benefits promoted by the company mind you- often experience negative career consequences.

Take a minute to appreciate the irony here. Programs set up to help workers avoid conflicts with work, if used, create significant career conflicts at work.

There is some good news, however. A recent study shows that one way for workers to avoid such career obstacles is to have "strong" supervisors, those who will support and advocate for that worker during an extended absence and upon return from being away. 

Certainly you have workers in your organization that you want to work with over and over in your projects and your projects demand that all workers be available to ensure progress is made. Yet, you want to provide the flexibility afforded by work-life programs because these programs do improve the work environment and you definitely do not want your favorite workers' careers to suffer.

If one of your preferred workers makes use of work-life programs and takes an extended absence, be proactive in your support for that worker.  For example,

• Make sure you describe the absent worker as "returning soon" and proactively plan for specific tasks for the worker upon return.
• Plan work schedules to accommodate absences so they do not become an issue for the worker(s).
• Reschedule work to accommodate a "surprise" absence so that others do not suffer from the absence.
• If appropriate, defend against efforts to replace the worker permanently.
• Upon return, get the individual up to speed quickly and communicate the worker's availability. Reiterate your respect for the worker and your happiness at their return.

If you become part of the problem by not acting as an advocate for your high-performing worker, then you may lose that worker form future projects.

A recent study (abstract here) reports that when employers require more hours, females in dual-earner households tend to quit disproportionately.  It's due to a cultural bias, but that doesn't help you keep half of your best workers.

What to do?

• Support use of your organization's work-life balance programs.
• Make a specific effort to talk to your best performing female workers to determine if they feel they are overworked. If they do feel overworked, see what you can do to help them achieve a better balance.

There are many actions you can take to preserve your best performers. This is just one that helps you counter a cultural bias.

Another sociological learning tomorrow.

Until recently, we had a lot of anecdotal evidence that programs designed to reduce work-family conflict did good for the worker and for the organization. But anecdotal evidence is not enough for you whether you want to

• start or enlarge such an effort
• leverage an existing program in your project.

Now there has been a significant large study to give objective evidence whether a "work/life" program can work and what the results can be (abstract here). The study showed that benefitsof such programs to the organization do indeed exist. (They are not merely the good wishes of the HR department.)

Here is a key point: These benefits primarily accrue from employees having more control over their schedules. Employees who have work conflicts due to home or family responsibilities were able to work these out with more flexible schedules. When employees have worked out the conflicts, they are able to perform better at work. You like better worker performance in your project, right?

You can now more confidently leverage in your project any work-family balance programs, especially those features that support flexible individual work schedules.  When planning and executing your project, build in flexibility for individual worker's schedules and promote it during your project. There are several previous posts in The Eye on the topic of work/life programs.

This is the first of a few quick posts on recent sociological studies that are relevant to better project management.

In  the last post, your were asked to decide between two candidates in a situation where the role would need to exhibit risk-taking to be successful in the project.

Recent studies have shown that common rationales used to make these decisions are inaccurate. Worse, they may amount to stereotypes which will result in people being unfit for their project role.

Here is what we know from actual studies:

• Men do take more risks when it comes to finances.
• Women take more risks when it comes to social situations, such as speaking their mind about an unpopular issue in a meeting at work.

But a third and more powerful point related to risk-taking is that people are rarely consistent in life domains. Just because  someone speeds during their commute does not mean they tend to stick their neck out at work.

Just because someone is very cautious with their investments  does not mean they will be careful in the office.

Studies tell us that people take more risks when they are in situations where they are comfortable. That's how you find people more likely to take risks when you need them to. Find out if they are comfortable in those situations, if they have experience in similar situations.

For this reason, Qualified Candidate #1 is the best choice in the given situation. She will be more comfortable in the leader role because she has performed that role much longer - and more likely to be comfortable with taking the social risks necessary to be successful.

Did you select correctly? Have you had problems with selecting the wrong candidate in the past?