Unit 7 Response to Data Management and Ethics
How would I handle being asked to be unethical by manipulating data? Well, this happened to me in my present position with a slight tweaking of the circumstances.
Here is my story. I worked for an attorney who the secretaries called “Evil Spawn”. I was not told about this attorney until my first day of employment. It was as if management was hiding something from me and this alone is not ethical or at least this is not good business practices and as a prior manager, I would not practice this form of deceptive management. However, I started working for the firm and had several other wonderful attorneys, so I dealt with having one bad one. I worked for this “bad” attorney for about three years, with very little conflict and thought his reputation was ill founded. In year four, his behavior changed and he came into the office less frequently and when he did, he was disorganized, curt in his behavior toward me and began asking me for answers to questions that he as an attorney should have known the answer to and or responded to others instead of me as go between. I could go on and on, rather, I will get to the point. He began to miss hearings and appointments and tried to blame me for not telling him, but I did and had documented when and how I told him (thank goodness). He asked me to cover for him and that “he would scratch my back, if I would scratch his.” I told him no, that I would not do this and that it was unethical for him as an attorney, nor was it ethical for me as a professional secretary and as you might imagine, he tried to retaliate against me. I refused to cover for him and told my boss that something was wrong with him and I suspected drug use or that medically he was ill.
One day, I called him at home because the court called me asking for him at a very important court appearance. He was at home sleeping and the client was waiting at the court for him. Bad, really bad.... He asked me to cover for this missed appearance and lie to the client and I couldn’t do this. Regardless of how I feel about my firm, of which I have shared about before, I had to protect its name, myself, the other attorneys in our firm, and of course we didn’t want to lose the client. This attorney was lying to the client and the client reported this to the manager. It was a very bad situation. This attorney also wanted me to sign his name on declarations under the penalty of perjury.
I was very worried that because he is an attorney and has much more clout and power then I do as a secretary that somehow he would manipulate the situations that had occurred and I would be held accountable. This occurs quite frequently in other firms I am sad to say.
My boss protected me from his retaliation and his employment with my firm was terminated.
If the situation was with a co-worker, it would depend on the situation; however, if asked to change or modify information or data, no I wouldn’t do that. I am not a saint, but don’t put me in a position that jeopardizes my job. This is an extreme form of selfishness.
http://paulinabeautiovia.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Metrics-Blog 2 BUILDING TRUST
In this Blog assignment, I want to look at trust and how it is very much integrated into the employment relationship. My first thought was what is trust...what is it really? I looked at Silzer and Dowell (2010) and read about trust, which is that trust "...must be real, pervasive and here and now" and that it is the foundation of the employment relationship (p. 133). Our stakeholders need to know that our agenda, whatever it is, is focused on the health and welfare of the corporation. No matter what our role is for our organization, the relationship that we have with those in charge and each other has to be based on our credibility and of course trust because we will be given confidences and we could be privy to confidential information (p. 727). "Without trust, you get shut out of critical discussions..." (p. 740). So, how do we build this trust? First is credibility and as I have mentioned before, speak their language. Know what I am talking about, speak clearly, get to the point, speak confidently and openly and if "...organizations do not know what difference their training makes," I had better know how and why my recommendations are going to make a difference (Griffin, 2010, p. 3).
I can also build trust by regular and/or frequent communication with those I am reporting to and give them measurable progress. What also comes to mind is that many stakeholders are men, or at least many of them are in my field and they don’t have time for indecision. As a woman, this means that I present my ideas, get to the point, have suggestions for solving the challenges that I present and ask for their input. This relationship of trust is built over time and by experiences. To overcome distrust, maybe it would be good to talk about the distrust instead of avoiding the topic. Start with little projects and build from there. Maybe mistrust will always be there because HR is seen as a “different kind of animal,” however, this is where persistence is important. Some stakeholders will be willing to trust and those relationships can be built as we work on building our relationships with managers and others.
Resources
I can also build trust by regular and/or frequent communication with those I am reporting to and give them measurable progress. What also comes to mind is that many stakeholders are men, or at least many of them are in my field and they don’t have time for indecision. As a woman, this means that I present my ideas, get to the point, have suggestions for solving the challenges that I present and ask for their input. This relationship of trust is built over time and by experiences. To overcome distrust, maybe it would be good to talk about the distrust instead of avoiding the topic. Start with little projects and build from there. Maybe mistrust will always be there because HR is seen as a “different kind of animal,” however, this is where persistence is important. Some stakeholders will be willing to trust and those relationships can be built as we work on building our relationships with managers and others.
Griffin, R. P. (2010). Means and ends: Effective training evaluation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(4), 220-225. doi:10.1108/00197851011048582
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.). (2010). Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative. San Francisco , CA
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Metrics-Blog 1
I have been asked to assess whether HR is getting a “seat at the table” as strategic partner. If I use my company as an example, or my chosen company for research, Estee Lauder, I would say no. I see my HR as a transactional department; one that administers benefits, employee orientations and manages our anti-harassment/discrimination policies. I think that I am selling my HR department short and until I interview an HR employee, I won’t really know what their roles are. However, with this being said, it appears that my HR is a silent department. It is possible as Becker, Huselid and Ulrich (2007) state, that there is a great deal of frustration between departments and a lack of communication (p. 10-11). I think that HR, as it evolves, will need be more then it is. Companies are demanding more of their employees and you know, why wouldn’t HR want to grow? One of the problems is that those that want to grow strategically, don’t know how or don’t know how to talk to stakeholders.
In my master’s classes at Walden University
Historically, HR has been staffed with women, like my field is. Women working for men in support position. In my field, no matter how much education we have or experience, there are many attorneys that cannot look at their assistant as an integral part of their team. It is frustrating!
Resource
Becker, B., Huselid, M., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy. Boston , MA Harvard Business School
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Unit 8 Tuckman stages
I am a member of group C and we had two group assignments to complete. One of our group members really took the lead in both assignments and I appreciate her taking the lead and mapping it all out for us. I had been thinking about doing it, but I decided to wait and see what would happen. Several of us got to work on our projects right away and others came in a day or two later. In the first assignment, I went with the flow and with the second, I wanted to check in with everyone early, just to connect. I got a response and felt connected. I am not sure that others feel connected, but also because there was no communication about the stages or where we are at and we haven’t processed our experiences, I don’t know.
In the first assignment, we were told that our project was good but had too many words, etc. Our grade was good, and the group member that prepared it felt bad that our grade went down. I don’t know what others said to him, but he apologized for this. During the second assignment, he gave us clear specific instructions for submitting our portions.
Update on 2-23-12: The team member that took my assignment has done another, which decrease my stress. I over reacted and he was gracious and apologized for his error. So, I have exited the storming phase and am back to working confidently and patiently with all.
Love Paulina Beautovia
I think that we are still in the forming stage. Working at getting to know each other, yet with these assignments, we are developing interdependence on each other.
However, with all of this being said, I think that I have just entered the storming phase. As I said, I selected my topics early and they were confirmed by the group leader. As I was submitting my assignments to the person that was to prepare the power point presentation, I noticed that another group member, who got his assignments much later than I did, TOOK MY SECOND TOPIC. I email him right away and told him that he took my topic. This is the kind of thing that happens when we are under stress and know that the course is coming to an end or are in a hurry. However, I feel scared and angry because I don’t have the time to do another topic. Plus, I usually back down and am a people pleaser. Not this time, I did my part. I have earned an evening off to watch Twilight. Now I am stressed....
Update on 2-23-12: The team member that took my assignment has done another, which decrease my stress. I over reacted and he was gracious and apologized for his error. So, I have exited the storming phase and am back to working confidently and patiently with all.
Love Paulina Beautovia
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Unit 6 Outsourcing
My task for this blog, is to examine outsourcing, the pros and cons of using this platform.
Outsourcing is designed to:
1. To lower operating costs.
2. Allows HR to focus on complex areas such as strategy and talent.
3. Help the company adjust to the demands of corporate downsizing.
4. Assist HR, when there is not enough talent to carry out traditional HR tasks.
5. Companies want to outsource payroll due to the complexity of these kinds of tasks.
6. Assist HR, when there is no legal expertise when developing handbooks, contracts, sexual harassment policies, etc.
Stackpole (2006-2008) says that any task that involves employee knowledge should not be outsourced to outside vendors because they do not have the intimate knowledge of the business and its employees. Outside vendors have a specialty and singular focus, such as payroll, 401K retirement plans but not the company as a whole (p. 2). The current trend is to outsource as a cost reduction measure, so that HR can shift their focus from transactional tasks to complex corporate matters such as talent management and strategy. Traditional tasks include benefit packages, administration, payroll and even word processing functions. However, with that being said, employee satisfaction needs to be considered when using inadequate or poorly prepared companies for outsourceing.
As an example, our entire IT department was let go and the function of the help desk and systems management department was outsourced; employees taking their experience with them. There was a reorganization of those in leadership positions that remained, so in this way, not “everyone” was let go. A company was hired as an external help desk for us and this is where the problems began. Besides letting go and the sadness of saying farewell to well established relationships, the new technicians had not worked internally at our company, nor did they understand the software systems of our legal department. It was a very difficult transition for them and for us. It took about six months for the adjustment and now when we call the helpdesk, most of us can get the help we need when experiencing computer issues.
I am sure that my company saved money by outsourcing and not having to pay salaries, and expensive benefit packages, however, those that were let go took so much experience with them. In addition, the soft cost of employee frustration was seen as a small price to pay for the organizational savings. I think that outsourcing is good and is also a way to link a company with the community and outside businesses, because you never know when a link to the pipeline will be needed, but it must be used judicially and not as a catch all to replace experienced employees or an easy way to save money.
Resource
Stackpole, B. (2006-2008). HR functions: In-House or Outsource It? TalentPool Company. Retrieved from Http://www.talentpool.ru/ed/text/info/hr_funtion_in_house_or_outsource_it
Outsourcing is designed to:
1. To lower operating costs.
2. Allows HR to focus on complex areas such as strategy and talent.
3. Help the company adjust to the demands of corporate downsizing.
4. Assist HR, when there is not enough talent to carry out traditional HR tasks.
5. Companies want to outsource payroll due to the complexity of these kinds of tasks.
6. Assist HR, when there is no legal expertise when developing handbooks, contracts, sexual harassment policies, etc.
Stackpole (2006-2008) says that any task that involves employee knowledge should not be outsourced to outside vendors because they do not have the intimate knowledge of the business and its employees. Outside vendors have a specialty and singular focus, such as payroll, 401K retirement plans but not the company as a whole (p. 2). The current trend is to outsource as a cost reduction measure, so that HR can shift their focus from transactional tasks to complex corporate matters such as talent management and strategy. Traditional tasks include benefit packages, administration, payroll and even word processing functions. However, with that being said, employee satisfaction needs to be considered when using inadequate or poorly prepared companies for outsourceing.
As an example, our entire IT department was let go and the function of the help desk and systems management department was outsourced; employees taking their experience with them. There was a reorganization of those in leadership positions that remained, so in this way, not “everyone” was let go. A company was hired as an external help desk for us and this is where the problems began. Besides letting go and the sadness of saying farewell to well established relationships, the new technicians had not worked internally at our company, nor did they understand the software systems of our legal department. It was a very difficult transition for them and for us. It took about six months for the adjustment and now when we call the helpdesk, most of us can get the help we need when experiencing computer issues.
I am sure that my company saved money by outsourcing and not having to pay salaries, and expensive benefit packages, however, those that were let go took so much experience with them. In addition, the soft cost of employee frustration was seen as a small price to pay for the organizational savings. I think that outsourcing is good and is also a way to link a company with the community and outside businesses, because you never know when a link to the pipeline will be needed, but it must be used judicially and not as a catch all to replace experienced employees or an easy way to save money.
Resource
Stackpole, B. (2006-2008). HR functions: In-House or Outsource It? TalentPool Company. Retrieved from Http://www.talentpool.ru/ed/text/info/hr_funtion_in_house_or_outsource_it
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Unit 4 Blog HR
My Professor asked me if I believe that leadership development should be primarily a human resource function.
My answer to this is no. Why is my answer a resounding no? Because if human resources has total responsibility for leadership training and development, they will not be acting as part of a team, which could translate into a disconnect if there is a lack of communication when interacting with other organizational teams; separate does not mean that it will be better. As I see it, the problem with isolated responsibility is that it will operate in a vacuum. Whether a team will share information with other teams is in question here. I picture the best practices team as being made up of senior leaders, middle managers and line managers, human resources and others who have formed one unit and have a common goal, which is the present and future success of the company. Human resources, as talent managers have key roles, but are only a portion of what is needed and share a portion of the successes or failures that a company experiences. These failures or mistakes, and successes are not the “fault” of one person or group; it is usually a combination of processes that when critically evaluated, determine what happened. If one department has the weight of the future on its shoulders, this would be too much to carry. Also, if the responsibility is given to several, it is shared by all because collectively the “all” can do more than just one person.
Case in point: Recently, I heard a speech that talked about changing the status quo. It was about new ideas and he gave several specific ideas on how to go about making those changes. It was a grand speech at best and very inspiring. Whether I agree or disagree with the changes that were suggested, is immaterial to this post. What is important as I listened, is what I observed and thought about. What I observed in those that were listening was negative body language, which for me translates into resistance to trying something new. I began to think about our class in leadership development and what it might take to get the CEO and others to look at new ideas that challenge the old ways. If one person suggests change, that can be discounted, but when teams suggest change, there is more power in that suggestion. One person, with the best of ideas is only one person. However, I must challenge myself here, because in history, one person, did make a difference and that is Dr. Martin Luther King. He suggested a new way of thinking, and it was met with resistance, however, those that embraced his ideas, collectively helped change our country for the better.
To bring this post back to human resources as the primary leadership development, I think that it must be a team effort. Silzer and Dowell (2010), when discussing competencies, say that it is the “organizational processes” that create the most comprehensive experiences when building leadership programs (p. 324). Comprehensive means all-inclusive where many parts are included together to make something happen.
Reference
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.). (2010). Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Forever, Paulina Beautovia
My answer to this is no. Why is my answer a resounding no? Because if human resources has total responsibility for leadership training and development, they will not be acting as part of a team, which could translate into a disconnect if there is a lack of communication when interacting with other organizational teams; separate does not mean that it will be better. As I see it, the problem with isolated responsibility is that it will operate in a vacuum. Whether a team will share information with other teams is in question here. I picture the best practices team as being made up of senior leaders, middle managers and line managers, human resources and others who have formed one unit and have a common goal, which is the present and future success of the company. Human resources, as talent managers have key roles, but are only a portion of what is needed and share a portion of the successes or failures that a company experiences. These failures or mistakes, and successes are not the “fault” of one person or group; it is usually a combination of processes that when critically evaluated, determine what happened. If one department has the weight of the future on its shoulders, this would be too much to carry. Also, if the responsibility is given to several, it is shared by all because collectively the “all” can do more than just one person.
Case in point: Recently, I heard a speech that talked about changing the status quo. It was about new ideas and he gave several specific ideas on how to go about making those changes. It was a grand speech at best and very inspiring. Whether I agree or disagree with the changes that were suggested, is immaterial to this post. What is important as I listened, is what I observed and thought about. What I observed in those that were listening was negative body language, which for me translates into resistance to trying something new. I began to think about our class in leadership development and what it might take to get the CEO and others to look at new ideas that challenge the old ways. If one person suggests change, that can be discounted, but when teams suggest change, there is more power in that suggestion. One person, with the best of ideas is only one person. However, I must challenge myself here, because in history, one person, did make a difference and that is Dr. Martin Luther King. He suggested a new way of thinking, and it was met with resistance, however, those that embraced his ideas, collectively helped change our country for the better.
To bring this post back to human resources as the primary leadership development, I think that it must be a team effort. Silzer and Dowell (2010), when discussing competencies, say that it is the “organizational processes” that create the most comprehensive experiences when building leadership programs (p. 324). Comprehensive means all-inclusive where many parts are included together to make something happen.
Reference
Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.). (2010). Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Forever, Paulina Beautovia
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Unit 3 side note
I was reading Chapter 6 in our text about change and how it is imperative that our leaders communicate the business strategy to other leaders so that they can communicate what they know to their employees. If our leaders are only superficially invested in the company's success or have self centered ambition, critical information is will not passed on.
Second point that I want to discuss here is what happens when leaders are so embedded with other leaders that they collude and protect each other? This may be a bigger problem than the lack of corporate communication. In my last firm, those that were "in charge" had been with the company for at least 20 years and had 'grown" and supported each other over years of practicing law. One of the attorneys got promoted and even though she was a good lawyer, she was a horrible manager. Several reported her poor management skills, inaccurate performance reviews, favoritism and when one gal became courageous, she went outside of the chain of command and reported her. What happened is that this manager was asked to step down and the gal that reported her was given a severance package and signed a separation agreement. I had reported her as well when I was there, but I reported her to her manager and nothing was done.
Lastly, a very important thing to have, when developing talent, is an independent hot line or drop box that can be used to give suggestions or if there are problems, to report them. Love Paulina Beautovia.
Second point that I want to discuss here is what happens when leaders are so embedded with other leaders that they collude and protect each other? This may be a bigger problem than the lack of corporate communication. In my last firm, those that were "in charge" had been with the company for at least 20 years and had 'grown" and supported each other over years of practicing law. One of the attorneys got promoted and even though she was a good lawyer, she was a horrible manager. Several reported her poor management skills, inaccurate performance reviews, favoritism and when one gal became courageous, she went outside of the chain of command and reported her. What happened is that this manager was asked to step down and the gal that reported her was given a severance package and signed a separation agreement. I had reported her as well when I was there, but I reported her to her manager and nothing was done.
Lastly, a very important thing to have, when developing talent, is an independent hot line or drop box that can be used to give suggestions or if there are problems, to report them. Love Paulina Beautovia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)