Is Your Employee Data Safe?

Frank

A Note: this post was written by a guest writer, and does not necessarily represent my opinion. That said, I think it’s important to host a variety of thoughts and perspectives on the blog and thus, I give you the following article written by Frank Lynn, Proposal Manager at SuccessFactors. As always, please feel free to comment.

Imagine this nightmare – You leave your house in the morning juggling your keys, your coffee and your cell phone as you set off for work where you are the Director of HR at a growing, global organization. As you approach your car you notice your windshield is smashed to pieces and you realize instantly that your laptop is gone, along with a spreadsheet you created last week containing payroll information on your 1,500 employees.

Many companies understand the risk associated with sensitive customer data, but they don’t realize that an employee data breach could be just as serious. In today’s post-HIPAA, post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment, implementing controls to safeguard information such as financial statements and medical records is top of mind. CIOs and Risk Management professionals are under a lot of stress. All it takes is one lost or stolen laptop to put an entire organization at risk – and generate a barrage of negative publicity (e.g., the recent Dept. of Veteran Affairs mishap that exposed 26 million patient health records).

The European Union led the way in protecting employee data privacy with its 1995 directives regarding collection and use of employee data; which included giving employees rights to access and correct data concerning themselves. This means EU residents can check their personnel file for errors like you’d check your credit report. The EU also restricts transfers of personal data to countries that do not ensure “an adequate level of protection.” Many EU nations impose strict fines and penalties in the event of an employee data breach.

Canada has also followed suit with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) that states companies in certain sectors such as banking and aviation must have a legitimate purpose for collecting, using and disclosing employees’ data records.

In response to foreign data privacy laws, the US Department of Commerce created the Safe Harbor Certification process. Safe Harbor Certification is comprised of an annual self-certification process where companies are required to abide by seven principles of data security. This takes navigating the legalese of foreign laws out of the equation, by adhering to a data privacy standard that is universally acceptable.

This issue is upon us and it is here to stay. Make sure your internal systems and processes are safe, your data is restricted appropriately and your application vendors can live up to the highest security standards.

For more information about data privacy laws, take a look at these sites:
http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/index.html
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_01_e.asp

Quitting your job in public

Though perhaps a bit risque for an HR-related blog, one of my colleagues sent me this link and I thought I would pass it along. I figured it might be good for a Friday afternoon chuckle at the very least.

I wont get into details - if you want to know, you can click the link and listen – but suffice it to say that this radio DJ is not going to take it anymore, and she wants all her listeners to know. I bet she’d vote yes on the open salaries question, too.

(Related thought: I wonder if such public outburst are cathartic. I’m sure there are plenty of people who wish that they could tell their employer off, but when it’s over, do they feel better? Would you feel better?)

Wanna know how much I make?

586390_u_s__quartersThe Chief Happiness Officer does. And he’s got good reason for wanting to know. Among other things, he thinks it might make salaries more fair, make it easier to retain the best employess and keep pressure on the highest earners to earn their keep.

The idea of open salaries is contentious. It’s throught provoking. It’s also downright brilliant. I’m a strong believer in the power of transparency to right wrongs, reduce red tape and eliminate waste –and I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work for salaries. Except one. it would require that employees be willing to accept their status in the corporation. For those at the bottom to understand that and be okay with being there.

To a certain extent, everyone knows their status already – people know how much they make and have a general idea of what others pull in. But to whatever extent they’ve justified those salaries to themselves, they would be forced, in this new world, to justify them to everyone else, too. “I’m okay with being worth $X.” That may just be too painful and demotivating to be productive for the organization.

The post is a rather fair dissection of both sides of the open/closed salaries argument – a worthy 5 minute read – even though we know which side wins.

Reality TV for business: House of Boateng

BoatengPerhaps somewhat off topic, I thought I would point out an interesting show that’s been airing on the Sundance channel. Called “House of Boateng,” it follows the zany misadventures of Ozwald Boateng (seen left), a London-based fashion designer, in his attempts to penetrate the US market. Along the way, he meets wild and wacky investors, throws tempter tantrums and alienates employees in his attempt to make it big across the pond. (He also does this strange dance when he feels uncomfortable, or is in the spotlight, and that alone makes the show worth watching.)

Now, ordinarily, you wouldn’t find me watching much reality television – especially on the Sundance Channel – but in all fairness to myself, this is the summer season and good TV is hard to find. In any case, the reason I mention it here is that Mr. Boateng is like a lot of small business owners. While exceptionally talented at what he does, and very successful to boot, Boateng’s domineering style and penchant for micro-management results in all sorts of fun-to-watch chaos as the business leaps and lurches it’s way to growth.

Continue reading

HR means Higher Revenues

HigherRevenuesphoto_illus_1I stole the title for this post from this Fortune Small Business article which recaps a survey of over 300 small businesses. The survey concluded that HR can be the deciding factor between an “explosive” business and a “sluggish” one (and they have some really cool cartoons that highlight the points, like the one to the left).

There are some very good supporting points, but my favorite is this one: Companies with controlling bosses lagged companies that give employees more autonomy. By a lot. Those with more autonomy had faster revenue growth (14.6% to 3.2%), profit growth (8.7% to 4.8%) and lower turnover (8.5% to 23.6%). (Wowza!)

I’m starting to think that this goal of HR being strategic is too tame. When we can show that HR means more money, everyone should pay attention.

 

 

Better to be passionate than smart

Or so Seth Godin seems to say. Here, he advocates for hiring passionate people who may or may not be particularly efficient or effective. Truth be told, I tend to agree with him.

I’m dealing with a situation now with my bank. It involves a lost wire transfer – they sent it, and no one got it. They’ve spent the last two weeks “tracking it” but have yet to “find anything.” How can this be possible?

It’s possible because the people just don’t care. It’s not a big enough amount of money, and I’m not important enough a customer for anyone to really give a hoot about tracking it down.

It reminds me of part of a speech I listened to last week by Jason Fried of 37 signals. In it, he says that hiring “happy people” is more important than hiring for the perfect skill-set. Why? Because happy people come to work everyday ready to do what needs to be done. They bring people up instead of dragging them down.

Seth is right - even if the sales clerk in his article seems overly detailed -  passionate people make all the difference. They go the extra mile to get things done and keep customers happy. And ultimately, customer success matters most.

Do benefits matter?

Of course they do? But why? 

Mckinsey-surveyWell, according to this McKinsey survey, everyone thinks they matter for reasons like employee attraction and retention, meeting responsibilities to employees and so on. But when asked whether in fact they actually do matter, in other words – whether the results of the benefits programs have ever been measured – the vast majority (78%) of people surveyed said no.

Now, the point of the survey isn’t to say that because the benefits of the benefits aren’t measured, they should be stopped. Rather, it’s to point out that executives don’t understand why the benefits they provide matter to employees. And since thy don’t understand it, they don’t know what levers to pull to help attract and retain talent.

So I pose the question to you – what kinds of benefits do you think are most attractive to top talent? I’m curious to hear your comments, and perhaps we can help sort these unknowing executives out.

systematicHR interviews SuccessFactors

MicrophoneWanted to point you to an interview that DubDubs at systematicHR did with our very own Rob Bernshteyn. He just published the article, but the interview was done a ways back. In any case, I think Dubs picks up one some important points about us (technology, analytics) in the context of the market, and I encourage you to read it.

He’s also done some other great posts recently on the future of HR technology and Does HR technology define HR strategy?

Why new employees fail

According to this Fortune article, it’s because they don’t know what’s expected of them. “A big reason is that a huge percentage of new employees, including new managers, are not clearly told what they were hired to do or what their goals should be for the first six months and the first year.”

Makes good sense.

Apparently, nearly 50% of employees fail in the first 18 months of their jobs. And we’re not just talking about individual contributors, either. Actually, the higher up you are, the more likely you are to fail.

But it seems to me that blaming lack of direction for failure doesn’t address the whole problem. It’s a company’s fault for not providing enough direction – but it’s an employee’s fault for not seeking one out. Beyond that, bad managers, personality mismatches and lack of appropriate competencies are all good reasons for why new employees fail.

It’s always been a belief of mine that taking a job (or hiring someone) is like the beginning of a new relationship. There are all kinds of reasons why personal relationships fail. I’m sure we’re all familiar with many of them. Sometimes, even knowing our goals for the relationships is not enough to keep it alive when other parts are missing.

Check the article out, there’s even a cool quiz to take to find out if you’ll succeed in your new job.