The Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, Volume 1: Short Entries

By William J. Rothwell

The three volumes in The Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management offer a comprehensive review of the essential issues and most important information available on the topic. Each volume in the encyclopedia contains contributions from some of the most celebrated names in the field of human resource management (HRM) and addresses the myriad challenges faced by today's human resource professionals.

Volume 1 puts the focus on the definition of terms and practices that are most relevant to today's human resource management (HRM) professionals. The contributors bring an up-to-date perspective of HRM definitions and practices and for ease of access, the terms are presented in alphabetical order. Each contributor includes the most recent research on a particular topic and summarizes a new and progressive definition of these important terms. The book begins with an enlightening discussion of the evolving practice of talent management and contains the following topics: Affirmative Action, Assessment, Business Ethics, Campus Recruitment, Career Development, Compensation, Drug Tests, Employee Relations, Flexible Benefits, Glass Ceiling, HR Metrics and Analytics, Mergers and Acquisitions, National Labor Relations Act, Quality Circles, Recruitment and Selection, Self-Directed Work Teams, Social Responsibility, Strategic Human Resource Management, Training Needs Analysis, Work Family Balance, and more.

The Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management gives human resource professionals the knowledge, information, and tools needed to implement the best practices in the field.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wiley
• Release date: Mar 12, 2012
• ISBN: 9781118189672

Book preview

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME ONE

This volume of The Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management consists of approximately eighty-four definitional papers that discuss myriad topics in a specific, yet comprehensive, approach of the body of knowledge related to human resource management (HRM).

Readers of this volume will find in-depth research and discussions of specific topics related to HRM. However, we should not become myopic in the study of these definitions that we lose site of the bigger picture. All of what comes together (definitions included) to become a comprehensive body of knowledge of HRM should drive forward an agenda of progress for organizations that implement such practices.

It is my opinion that talent management is the proverbial stake in the ground around which all modern HRM action creates the greatest impact for organizations. Thus, the first article serves as a beacon of direction in moving HR practices from a designated point toward a better educated sense of destination—and as a worthy introduction for this volume of work.

Dr. Robert K. Prescott, SPHR

Editor, Volume One

September 2011

ARTICLE 1

THE EVOLVING PRACTICE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT

Brian E. Wilkerson

Companies that rely on traditional talent management approaches will find themselves at an increasing disadvantage in the years ahead. The winners will be those that replace traditional talent management tactics with an integrated strategy owned by line management and focused on the elements that will truly give them an advantage.

Integrated talent management, which encompasses recruiting, succession planning, performance management, compensation, career development, learning, and strategic workforce planning, enhances an enterprise’s ability to attract and retain top talent. Bringing all these disciplines together into a cohesive strategy requires a significant investment of resources. The payback, however, in terms of lower turnover, higher engagement, and greater financial success, makes the investment worthwhile.

Organizations are struggling with how to reframe their attraction and retention strategies to adapt to the shortage of skilled workers, a changing economy, and the new technologies required to keep pace. Today’s businesses are struggling to manage a complex workforce that encompasses three generations of workers with differing needs and motivations and an increasingly global employee and customer base. Fragmented and disjointed talent management programs are making this process difficult.

Recruiting, succession planning, performance management, compensation, career development, learning, and strategic workforce planning are often handled as separate functions—sometimes by separate groups that often don’t effectively collaborate or coordinate their efforts. Compounding their efforts are a highly uncertain economy where companies are often experiencing simultaneous surplus and scarcity when it comes to talent and increasingly limited funds to invest in the practice of talent management.

Integrating talent management programs and other related initiatives allows a company to view workforce decisions in a strategic way and positions it for greater financial success.

Integrated Talent Management

Integrated talent management addresses managing human capital with the same clarity, discipline, and objectivity as managing other critical business assets. Research conducted while I was at Watson Wyatt Worldwide shows the elements that comprise a comprehensive, integrated strategy (Wilkerson, 2009). But just as important as connecting these elements together is connecting them to the business.

In 2007, we examined more than 150 talent management projects to determine what made companies successful at deploying integrated strategies. The major finding was that, while successful talent management is facilitated by the HR staff, it is owned by line managers and executives. It is part of each manager’s responsibilities and receives continual attention. This can happen, however, only when talent management processes align with the culture and values that drive how people in the organization make decisions and take action.

For example, no matter how thorough a succession planning process is, it will fail if managers pick up the phone and call an executive search firm as soon as a key player resigns. The point of succession planning is to have options already in place. Often succession plans are solely focused on compliance. Managers and HR staff respond to a CEO mandate by filling in the boxes to show a successor for all key positions. Little, if any, analysis or discussion occurs regarding the ripple effect of moving a particular person into a new position or the development needs of that individual, and often many people are identified as successors for more than one position. Such plans do not address the organization’s strengths and gaps, nor do they reflect a disciplined understanding of future needs. Integrated talent management aligns with the way the business works. Rather than forcing compliance from managers, it is embraced by managers because they see it as valuable to achieving their business results. This study showed that achieving this requires simple but powerful processes, where the effort put in is clearly aligned with the value received.

A truly integrated talent management process integrates talent decisions with business decisions. The distinction between connected processes and integrated processes is an important one here. In most organizations, talent management processes have varying degrees of connection to the business. That doesn’t mean they are integrated. Returning to the succession planning example, many organizations have talent review processes that call for discussing high-potential leaders and potential replacements and generally include a business context. Yet the talent planning discussion is disconnected from the business planning discussion.

In companies in which talent management is truly integrated, the succession discussion is part of the business discussion and talent reviews are part of business reviews. Discussion of future talent requirements is a natural outgrowth of a discussion about business direction, products, markets, and other issues. Throughout this book, you will find numerous definitions of key human resources concepts and information on practices employed by various companies. It is key to blend the elements that fit your culture and organization strategy into an integrated set of processes and practices that matches your needs. Rather than simply adopting what someone else terms as best practices, you have to create a synthesis of these concepts that speaks to your organization and can become part of how your management team manages.

Preparing Managers for a New Role

The current workforce challenges demand new thinking about talent management. This new thinking requires managers to develop new skills, including spotting good talent, coaching and growing their people, and connecting business planning skills with talent planning. Successful companies help their managers develop these skills to handle the people component of their jobs more effectively.

Managers play a critical role in integrated talent management, balancing the needs of the employer with those of the employee while representing the interests of both sides. To succeed, managers need a clear understanding of employee goals and expectations. Moreover, they need HR policies, processes, and tools to help them meet employees’ widely varying needs.

Establishing Talent Management Processes

Effective talent management processes integrate readily into the natural processes that drive the business. They take into account the managers’ work styles and busy work schedules. They ensure a high degree of communication from senior leaders down to individual employees. Clear communication establishes a clear line of sight and helps shape behavior.

For example, in most organizations, performance management really means performance appraisal. In contrast, integrated talent management closely links performance management with business management. One large service company has integrated its performance management process with its business reviews. Each business unit reviews its results and the contributions of its staff monthly, including the capabilities, skills, work processes, tools, and motivation that staff members need to improve their results. These reviews enable managers to provide real-time guidance to employees about improving performance, as well as real-time recognition for their contributions. Managers hold a brief conversation with each employee immediately following business reviews to give more specific feedback on performance. Generally, managers use notes from these conversations to make a more formal performance appraisal at year end. Both employees and managers see the process as easier, more valuable, and more closely connected to driving business results.

In the current business environment, integration also requires focus. Gone are the days of trying to establish best in class practices across all areas of talent management. Companies need to focus on the areas of talent management that will have the most impact on their business and where investments will bring the most return. In my own work, I have seen companies returning to a much more pragmatic approach to talent management and to integrating these processes with business strategy.

Achieving Integration

Companies that successfully integrate all their talent management processes and integrate talent management with the business strategy have a number of elements in common. First, they can clearly articulate how people contribute to the business strategy in terms that managers understand and can act on. Organizations with effective talent management also identify a clear set of objectives that are agreed to at the most senior levels and communicated throughout the organization.

Increasingly, companies are using brand as the link between people and strategy. Efforts around aligning internal (employment) with external (customer) brand go well beyond simply making the links between employee experience and customer experience. With brand alignment, companies are explicitly linking their employment brand and resultant employee value proposition to their customer brand and recognizing that employees are critical to delivering the brand promise to customers. To ensure that employees deliver on the external brand promise, employers must deliver on their employment brand promise. Managers are once again the critical link in this chain. Managers need to drive the right behaviors and have the right tools and processes to manage their people.

As a next step in the integration process, successful organizations define the decisions they are able to make to meet the talent management objectives, focusing on those that are most important and clearly tied to the business strategy. For example, in a consumer products company focused on new products, the key decisions focused on rewarding innovation, identifying the best innovators, and ensuring they were committed and engaged. These were then translated into data required to make the best decisions, and processes and tools were designed to effectively gather the data and translate it into actionable information.

A final element to success was driving accountability for talent management throughout the organization. Accountability takes different forms depending on the company, but includes holding leaders accountable for executing agreed-on processes and using them to make talent decisions. It also includes holding leaders to standards such as leadership competency models and ensuring that leaders either demonstrate those competencies or have plans for developing them.

While the integration process poses significant challenges, all successful companies find that integration is key to gaining manager and employee acceptance and to unlocking measurable results. Integration allows managers to see how to make talent management work in their day-to-day jobs instead of viewing it as some annual HR program. Once enough managers have adopted the processes, the programs, as measured by the key metrics the companies have chosen, begin to show improvement.

Conclusion

Research shows that companies with integrated talent management strategies do a better job of attracting and retaining top talent and, as a result, benefit from lower turnover and higher engagement levels than their peers. As talent management evolves in a changing economy, these companies are positioned to capture and maintain a leadership role in their respective industries. Most importantly, however, talent management strategies and processes must be aligned with the business strategy and owned by line managers and executives. In successful companies, HR is the facilitator and the business is the driver of successful talent management.

These companies will continue to distinguish themselves by creating a strong employment brand that clearly defines and communicates expectations, outcomes, and rewards. They will create a partnership between HR and business managers, leveraging the skills and expertise of each to make integrated talent management a reality. Through this partnership, they will strengthen employee engagement and encourage behaviors that drive business success.

Reference

Wilkerson, B.E. (2009). Five rules for talent management in the new economy. www.towerswatson.com/research-and-ideas.

ARTICLE 2

MULTI-RATER (360-DEGREE) FEEDBACK INSTRUMENTS

Curtis D. Curry

Multi-rater feedback, more commonly known as 360-degree feedback, is often used by organizations to help their managers identify leadership strengths and development areas. Multi-rater feedback instruments are designed to solicit feedback on a number of characteristics, skills, and behaviors believed to represent effective management, teamwork, or leadership practices. Examples of competencies include decision making, initiative, communication, and delegation.

There are many applications for multi-rater feedback. Common uses include assisting in career development, identifying gaps in perception of effective leadership performance between self, leader, peers, and direct reports, and enhancing manager and employee self-awareness. They are also used for improving communication and enhancing organizational efforts to involve employees. Using multi-rater feedback for these purposes can encourage behaviors and attitudes that reinforce the organization’s values and the strategic focus, while serving as a vehicle to promote the continuous growth and development of its leaders.

The primary purpose of multi-rater feedback is to provide an individual with extensive feedback on his or her skills, knowledge, or performance from a group of individual raters who are familiar with his or her work. The raters generally include the individual’s employees, peers, and supervisor. This 360-degree view helps people understand relative strengths and developmental areas both as they perceives them and as others who have been selected to participate in the process perceive them.

The process allows leaders to compare and contrast their view of their own effectiveness with the views of supervisors, peers, and employees. Such feedback helps the participant explore the concept perception is reality and determine how closely aligned the other individual perceptions are with his own. Chappelow (1998) summarizes the purpose of multi-rater feedback: a structured method of collecting and processing data, and an opportunity to reflect on this valuable information. It may be the only time some leaders ever consciously stop to take stock of their performance effectiveness (p. 35).

How Does It Work?

Multi-rater feedback surveys contain a number of questions, or items, that solicit feedback on the other person’s performance. The items are grouped under specific scales, which usually represent competency areas such as those mentioned above.

In implementing 360-degree programs, organizations choose individuals who will participate in the process. These participants complete the survey instrument and rate themselves on such topics as leadership effectiveness, typically responding to items on a scale. They evaluate their performance on each of the items that appear on the specific survey. Additionally, the organization or the individual chooses raters from a pool of those who are familiar with the his or her work. The raters are asked to complete the instrument, responding to the same items, and providing valuable feedback on the individual’s performance.

Most 360-degree assessments require a minimum of three raters from each peer and employee rater group. This is done in an effort to achieve anonymity. Research has shown that this is an important practice since raters will generally score an individual higher if anonymity is not guaranteed (Chappelow, 1998). One of the primary values of 360-degree feedback is the ability of the person being evaluated to consider many different perspectives on his or her performance. By guaranteeing anonymity, the person is more likely to receive constructive feedback. This is especially true for subordinates and peers, as most 360-degree feedback instruments do not guarantee anonymity for the supervisor of the individual being rated.

The superiors’ and supervisor’s ratings are generally not anonymous, because people who are requesting the feedback are encouraged to discuss their feedback with their supervisors. Moreover, it is most common for people who complete a survey to have only one supervisor, although in matrix organizations feedback from several supervisors is not uncommon.

Confidentiality is an important consideration in implementing 360-degree feedback programs. When the focus of 360-degree assessment is placed on leadership development and confidentiality of results is assured, what Chappelow has called a shield of objectivity is created (1998). This shield of objectivity increases the validity of the responses. While participants in 360-degree survey programs are encouraged to share general trends in their feedback with their supervisors, when coupled with anonymity of respondents, the shield of objectivity helps participants receive more accurate, and therefore more useful feedback.

Participating in a multi-rater feedback process gives an individual the opportunity to carefully consider perceptions of his or her strengths and potential developmental areas on a number of competencies, seen as critical for effective performance. Therefore, the person also has an opportunity to compare his or her self-perceptions with those of peers, direct reports, and managers on the very same competencies. This enables him or her to weigh the various perceptions, identify relative strengths and developmental areas, choose gaps in current behaviors and skills, and consider strategies to leverage existing strengths or develop new skills to bridge the gaps. This is accomplished through goal setting and action planning. Multi-rater feedback has extremely limited value if the participant does not put the information to work.

Pitfalls with 360-Degree Feedback

In addition to leadership development, other uses of multi-rater feedback include selection, promotion, and performance evaluation. Uses other than development are referred to as administrative uses. Practitioners and researchers alike (Chappelow 1998; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005) advise against using multi-rater feedback for purposes other than leadership development. Smither, London, & Reilly (2005) note that such use may create a prevention focus that can lead participants to a reactive, avoiding-type goal orientation (p. 53). Using multi-rater feedback for administrative purposes also increases rater bias as individuals strive to avoid torpedoing the career of the person they are evaluating and rate people more leniently (Chappelow, 1998). In their excellent book on choosing multi-rater feedback instruments, Velsor, Leslie, and Fleenor (1997) also argue that 360-degree feedback instruments should be used only in the context of development: An individual or organization planning to use an instrument of this sort for selection, promotion, pay, or performance purposes is in treacherous territory and will need to become aware of the relevant professional standards (SIOP, 1987) and government guidelines (Mohrman, Resnick-West, & Lawler, 1990), which are not covered in this report (p. 18).

Another pitfall in using 360-degree feedback tools effectively includes not carefully selecting the right instrument for the organization’s needs. One instrument is unlikely to fill all an organization’s needs with different management groups and levels. Instruments should be chosen with the actual behaviors, knowledge, and skills of the specific target group in mind.

Finally, the instrument’s validity and reliability should also be taken into account. Does the instrument measure accurately the behaviors it purports to provide feedback on? How reliably or consistently does it do so? Some surveys, such as the Center for Creative Leadership’s Benchmarks, are developed using rigorous validation procedures. Other 360-degree surveys are created by consultants or human resources professionals within the organization. Typically, these surveys are customized to address specific behaviors that the organization views as critical to its success in the marketplace. While they offer customization and specific targeting of leadership competencies, such instruments often suffer from inferior validity and reliability. If 360-degree feedback surveys are not carefully designed and validated to measure target competencies, the feedback may be marginally useful at best. Velsor, Leslie, and Fleenor (1997) offers a step-by-step guide to choosing the appropriate 360-degree feedback instrument to meet an organization’s specific needs.

Best Practices in Using 360-Degree Feedback

When utilized in the context of leadership development, 360-degree has been shown to improve performance, as well as serve as a catalyst to behavioral changes (Bradley, Allen, Hamilton, & Filgo, 2006; Chappelow 1998; Green, 2002; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005). While multi-rater feedback can help leaders identify strengths and developmental areas and increase their self-awareness, there are a number of practices that can further increase its value to an organization. The following are the top eight best practices for implementing a 360-degree feedback effort:

Supervisor, employee, and especially peer, feedback has been shown to help individual participants improve their performance when combined with other development efforts such as those outlined above.

References

Bradley, T., Allen, J., Hamilton, S., & Filgo, S. (2006). Leadership perception: Analysis of 360-degree feedback. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 7–33.

Chappelow, C.D. (1998). 360-degree feedback. In C.D. McCauley, R. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The handbook for leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Green, B. (2002). Listening to leaders: Feedback on 360-degree feedback one year later. Organizational Development Journal, 20(1), 8–16.

Mohrman, A.M., Jr., Resnick-West, S.M., & Lawler, E., III (1990). Designing performance appraisal systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, E., Rogers, C., & Metlay, W. (2002). Improving the payoff from 360-degree feedback. Human Resource Planning, 25(3), 44–54.

Smither, J., London, M., & Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66.

Tyson, S., & Ward, P. (2004). The use of 360-degree feedback technique in the evaluation of management development. Management Learning, 35(2), 205–223.

Velsor, E.V., Leslie, J., & Fleenor, J. (1997). Choosing 360: A guide to evaluating multi-rater feedback instruments for management development. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

ARTICLE 3

ACTION LEARNING

Yongho Park

In a modern competitive environment, organizations must be prepared to face various challenges, including finding new business opportunities, solving problems, establishing a shared vision of the future, and working toward achieving goals. Also, individuals have developmental needs to enhance their skills and knowledge. One method for coping with these two different needs can be action learning. Action learning is a real-time learning experience that is carried out with two equally important purposes—meeting an organizational need and developing group or individuals (Rothwell, 1999). Since its inception, action learning has influenced businesspeople, teachers, students, scientists, and a wide range of others with its approach to various level of learning including organizational, team, and individual (Waddill, Banks, & Marsh, 2010).

The term action learning has been defined very differently by various people, and many different training and learning interventions have been labeled with this term during the last two decades. The founder of action learning, Reg Revans (1982), defined action learning as a means of development, intellectual, emotional, or physical, that requires its subjects, through responsible involvement in some real, complex, and stressful problem, to achieve intended change to improve observable behavior henceforth in the problem field. Pedler (1991) regarded action learning as an approach to the individuals’ development in an organization and as the vehicle for learning, while McGill and Beaty (2001) defined it as a continuous process of learning and reflection, which are supported by many of their colleagues. Today, action learning is considered as both a process and a developmental program to improve favorable behaviors. Based on these trends, therefore, Marquardt (1999) described action learning as both a powerful program and a process that involves a small group of people solving real problems while focusing on what they are learning and the benefits from that learning at the same.

From these definitions, it is apparent that certain principles are common to action learning. Also, some basic principles distinguish action learning from other forms of experience-based learning. Its foundation is working in small groups in order to take action on meaningful problems while seeking to learn from having taken this action (Yorks, O’Neil, & Marsick, 1999). The basic two concepts of action learning, action and learning, especially need to be fully understood to concrete the concept of action learning more specifically (Yeo & Nation, 2010). Action learning is basically learning through action, where action is related to the behavior that each member of a group takes on his or her own issue after reflection with the group, and learning is the process of reflection. That is, the opportunity to reflect on an experience with the support of others followed by action means that set members engage in learning from experience in order to change rather than simply repeat previous patterns (McGill & Beaty, 2001).

Components of an Action Learning Program

The success and effectiveness of action learning rely on the cooperative interaction of elements. Weinstein (1999) discussed six main elements of action learning: (1) the set—the small group of five or six people who meet regularly to work together in a supportive yet challenging way; (2) the learning vehicle—the work-focused, real-time projects or tasks that each person focuses on; (3) the processes the set adopts when working—each person has his or her own airspace, in which to work on the project; (4) a set adviser—who helps the group as it works and learns; (5) the duration of a program—normally three to six months; and (6) the emphasis on learning—which emerges both from working on the projects and from working in the set. Weinstein discussed that the emphasis throughout the action learning is as much on achieving visible results as on learning from everything that takes place around the set.

Marquardt (1999, 2004) also identified six action learning components. Some elements of those six are very similar to Weinstein. For example, the set of Weinstein’s analysis is the group in Marquardt’s elements. However, his analysis of action learning components is built around a problem, including project, challenge, issue, or task, and that is different from Weinstein’s framework. Marquardt’s framework for action learning elements is globally regarded as the most comprehensive approach., which includes the following elements: (1) a problem should be significant, be within the responsibility of the team, and provide opportunity for learning; (2) the group is composed of four to eight individuals who examine an organizational problem that has no easily identifiable solution; (3) action learning tackles problems through a process involving asking questions to clarify the exact nature of the problem, and then reflecting possible solutions prior to taking action; (4) members of the action learning group have to have the resolution to take action or be assured that their recommendations will be implemented because there is no real learning unless action is taken; (5) action learning places equal emphasis on accomplishing the task and on the learning of individuals and organizations (the commitment to learning); and (6) the facilitator is important in helping the group members reflect both on what they are learning and on how they are solving problems. Marquardt suggested that interweaving these six components is valuable and necessary in creating the optimum capacity of action learning.

Key Steps in the Action Learning Model

Many action learning models have been suggested during the last few decades. These models share several common characteristics. Rothwell (1999) suggested one model depicting the following key steps:

Step 1. Recognize a situation suitable for action learning. To be most effective, action learning should be used only when a genuine business or organizational need exists.

Step 2. Select and organize an action learning team. Appropriate members of an action learning team have to be chosen for the team to be successful.

Step 3. Brief the team and establish constraints. Team members have to be given information about the issue, situation, or problem. Also, team members must have some sense of the limits on their search.

Step 4. Facilitate team interaction. In the action learning team, to function cohesively is a key to success and to the development of individual members, who learn from each other.

Step 5. Empower a team to identify and experiment with solutions. To achieve this purpose, the team members must be empowered to take action.

Step 6. Evaluate results. Team members set the parameters for the solution, so it is often worthwhile to give them the responsibility to assess how well that solution has worked.

Step 7. Set future directions. Action learning team members propose solutions, experiment with them, and are disbanded when an acceptable solution or a constraint is reached.

An organization adopting action learning can obtain benefits in various ways. Action learning is undertaken to achieve the goals of an organizations and individuals, and the needs of organizations and individuals can be met by action learning. Dotlich and Noel (1998) identified three types of action learning. Each type is related to the some benefits for organizations and individuals. That is, they discussed that action learning can be used as (1) a mechanism for cultural change, (2) a mechanism for developing people faster and better, and (3) a tool for raising revenue or cutting costs. These three types of action learning indicate that an organization can stand to benefit from action learning on cultural change, individuals’ development, and business profit. With regard to the benefits for the organization, Rothwell (1999) also more specifically listed the following five: (1) increased creativity, (2) increased ownership, (3) increased willingness to take risks for improvement, (4) increased interaction among the organization’s parts, and (5) improved morale and work satisfaction.

References

Dotlich, D.L., & Noel, J. (1998). Action learning: How the world’s top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marquardt, M.J. (1999). Action leaning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Marquardt, M.J. (2004). Optimizing the power of action learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.

McGill, I., & Beaty, L. (2001). Action learning: A guide for professional, management & educational development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pedler, M. (1991). Question ourselves. In M. Pedler (Ed.), Action learning in practice (2nd ed., pp. 63–70). Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Revans, R.W. (1982). The origin and growth of action learning. London: Chartwell Bratt.

Rothwell, W.J. (1999). The action learning guidebook: A real-time strategy for problem solving, training design, and employee development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Waddill, D., Banks, S., & Marsh, C. (2010). The future of action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 260–279.

Weinstein, K. (1999). Action learning: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Yeo, R.K., & Nation, U.E. (2010). Optimizing the action in action learning: Urgent problems, diversified group membership, and commitment to action. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 181–204.

Yorks, L., O’Neil, J., & Marsick, V.J. (1999). Action learning: Theoretical bases and varieties of practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2, 1–18.

Websites

www.gwu.edu/~bygeorge/021804/actionlearning.html

www.humtech.com/opm/grtl/ols/ols2.cfm

ARTICLE 4

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967 (ADEA)

Katy Lynn Wilson

Importance of ADEA

In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted into law by the U.S. Congress to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion, gender, or national origin. However, the act did not address discrimination based on age, and older Americans still struggled against inequities in the workplace. Some of the disadvantages and difficulties older Americans faced included obtaining and keeping employment, mandatory retirement, and employers imposing age limits for positions regardless of candidate abilities. To address this persisting discrimination, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1967 to prohibit discrimination against employees age forty and older in the workplace.

Recent statistics indicate that over half of our current workforce is protected under ADEA, giving it a very broad reach. However, according to the EEOC’s litigation statistics, ADEA claims account for only 9 percent of all discrimination suits filed.

ADEA Coverage

The ADEA covers U.S. citizens and foreign nationals (who are authorized to work in the United States) who are forty years of age or older and employees or job applicants of the following types of employers:

Private employers with more than twenty employees who work all business days in at least twenty weeks in the current or preceding calendar year;

Labor organizations;

Employment agencies;

State and local governments;

Multinational companies operating in the United States (unless otherwise covered by separate international agreement or treaty); and

Companies operating in other countries but based in, incorporated in, or controlled by a company in the United States (unless otherwise covered by laws in the other country).

It is important to note that the ADEA allows an employer to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if that younger worker is age forty or older. However, if an employer favors a younger worker protected by the ADEA over an older worker also protected, that employer is in violation of the ADEA.

ADEA Protections

The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against protected employees or job applicants in respect to all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including (but not limited to): hiring, transfers, promotions, terminations, layoffs, classifications, compensation/benefits, apprenticeships, and training programs. The act also prevents employers from harassing protected employees and creating hostile work environments as well as from retaliating against protected employees who claim age discrimination.

ADEA Exceptions

While the ADEA was enacted to protect older employees in the workplace, legislators did recognize that some exceptions to this protection were needed. These exceptions include:

Bona Fide Seniority Systems—having a seniority system that rewards employees with longer tenure, even if they are not over the age of forty.

Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)—a BFOQ exists if employees over a certain age would be unable to perform the essential job functions and there are no less discriminatory alternatives available.

Bona Fide Employee Benefit Plans—plans that allow employers to provide benefits to both younger and older workers at equal costs, even if this results in lesser benefits for the older workers, as long as the plan is provided in writing to all employees.

Firefighters and Law Enforcement Officers—governments can impose mandatory retirement ages (fifty-five or older) on these workers. This is an exception to the 1986 amendment eliminating mandatory retirement ages.

Bona Fide Executives and High Policy Makers—Organizations can require executives to retire at age sixty-five as long as they have worked in an executive/policy making position for the previous two years and will be able to collect at least $44,000 a year in benefits. This age limit can vary according to state law.

ADEA Compliance and Penalties

The ADEA lists specific penalties for any employer found in violation of the outlined protections. These penalties can include payment of lost wages/benefits, liquidated damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees. Courts may also require that employers reinstate employees or pay them for any future earnings the employer may have cost that employee with the discriminatory action.

The ADEA also outlines how a covered employer must maintain compliance with the provisions. Covered employers are required to post ADEA notices in prominent and accessible locations for both employees and potential applicants. They must also maintain employment records for a period of three years, which should include name, address, birth date, job title, and pay rate. Employers must keep records of benefit and seniority plans for one year after the plans expire. Employers are also required to keep records of all employment actions for one year after the action occurs. ADEA outlines that an employer must have a valid reason completely unrelated to age for any employment decision.

ADEA Amendments

There have been amendments to the ADEA that further the initial protections described in the statute. ADEA’s original verbiage provided protections only to workers between the ages of forty-five and sixty-five. This age restriction was continuously extended until the maximum age limit was ultimately removed in 1987.

One important amendment is the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act passed in 1990, which protects employees (ages forty or over) from being denied benefits due to their age. Prior to this amendment, it was not uncommon for employers to make discriminatory hiring decisions based on the fact that it would cost more to provide benefits to an older worker than to a younger worker, moving them to focus on hiring only younger workers. With this amendment, employers are only permitted to utilize age-based distinctions in regard to benefits if those distinctions are cost justified. This means that an employer is able to pay the same amount for benefits to both older and younger workers, even if this means the older worker receives fewer benefits (as the costs are the same). One important feature of the OWBPA is information regarding release agreements. During a reduction in force, employers will ask that the affected employees sign a waiver of liability prior to distributing severance. The OWBPA requires employers to ensure those waivers are written clearly and understandably and include the employee’s rights and potential claims under the statute. These releases must advise employees to seek legal advice and give employees twenty-one days to return them (forty-five days if it’s a group of affected employees) as well as seven days to rescind the signed release after its return. These stipulations give employees more protection and provide all the necessary information regarding their rights.

ADEA Enforcement

The EEOC maintains responsibility for enforcing ADEA. The EEOC has authority to initiate their own investigations into ADEA violations, negotiate with employers directly, and file lawsuits. Employees and job applicants can file charges against employers within 180 days from the discriminatory act (unless otherwise extended to three hundred days by state laws).

Once a charge is received, the EEOC will immediately dismiss the claim or notify the employer and proceed to investigate the claim to determine whether discrimination occurred. The EEOC may require claimants to submit documentation (statement of position, requests for information) or conduct onsite visits/interviews before they make a determination, which can, on average, take up to six months. If the EEOC finds no reason to believe discrimination has occurred, they will issue a dismissal along with a notice of rights to the employee who filed the charge. They will send a letter of determination when they find that discrimination most likely occurred, which will initiate the conciliation process. The conciliation process is voluntary and is a way to informally resolve an issue by allowing negotiations. If the conciliation process is unsuccessful, the EEOC will send the right to sue letter to the claimant. The claimant would then have ninety days from receipt of that letter to file a lawsuit. The ADEA allows for jury trials and for damages awarded by those juries to be doubled in cases involving intentional violations (known as disparate treatment).

While the EEOC has the right to review and investigate claims, issue reasonable cause findings, and right to sue letters, they have no authority to give a final judgment on a claim or dictate financial penalties. These judgments and financial penalty determinations are reserved for the courts.

Before a court can find in favor of a claimant, the claimant must prove that he or she is within the protected age bracket and was, in fact, denied a benefit or discharged while he or she was meeting the outlined expectations of the position at the time the discriminatory act took place. With the recent ruling in Gross vs. FPL Financial Services, it is stipulated that claimants are required to show a preponderance of evidence that age was the reason for the employer’s action in an ADEA claim. This ruling makes it significantly more difficult to bring forth and win a charge against an employer under the ADEA than it would for a charge under Title VII. Unlike Title VII, the ADEA has no inclusion for mixed-motive cases (cases in which the employer used both legal and discriminatory reasons for an employment decision) to move the burden of proof to the employer when there may be mixed motives. This means the burden of proving age was the primary reason for the employment decision and providing evidence of such lies with the employee, and this is a higher standard than set in Title VII.

Related Employment Law Cases

In order to develop a true understanding of the ADEA, it’s important to understand how the law is interpreted by the U.S. judicial system. Below is a sample of recent court cases that have been filed under ADEA.

O’Connor vs. Consolidated Coin Caterers (1996)

James O’Connor, fifty-six, filed suit under the ADEA against his previous employer, Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., alleging prima facie discrimination after he was replaced by a forty-year-old employee. The Supreme Court stated that the ADEA provides protection to employees based on age and not their place within that age bracket. So it did not matter whether both employees were protected by the ADEA, only that the employment decision was based on age (www.oyez.org/cases/1990–1999/1995/1995_95_354).

Reeves vs. Sanders Plumbing Products (2000)

Roger Reeves, fifty-seven, sued his former employer, Sanders Plumbing, under the ADEA claiming they terminated his employment due to his age, even though the company stated it was because Reeves failed to maintain records accurately. Reeves showed evidence of his accurate records and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Reeves. They indicated that if an employee provides adequate evidence to disprove an employer’s reason for a questionable employment decision, then that evidence would be adequate to find the employer liable for discrimination under the ADEA (www.oyez.org/cases/1990–1999/1999/1999_99_536).

General Dynamics Land vs. Cline (2004)

Paul Cline, a forty-eight-year-old union member working for General Dynamics Land, filed against his employer under the ADEA after they renegotiated a union contract to only provide full medical benefits to retirees over the age of fifty by July 1, 1997. Cline indicated this was reverse discrimination, as it gave older workers preferential treatment over younger workers also covered by ADEA. The Supreme Court indicated the ADEA was enacted for the explicit purpose of protecting older workers over younger ones, even if those younger employees are also over the age of forty. Because this contract benefited older workers, the court found in favor of the company (www.oyez.org/cases/2000–2009/2003/2003_02_1080).

Smith vs. City of Jackson, Mississippi (2005)

Azel Smith and his co-workers sued the Jackson, Mississippi, Police Department under the ADEA after a new salary plan was initiated. Smith contended that the salary plan offered larger raises to officers with fewer than five years of tenure, which had a disparate impact (unintentionally discriminatory) on older workers, as the majority of that protected class had more than five years of tenure. This case marked the first time the Supreme Court recognized disparate impact claims under the ADEA. Despite this authorization, the court ruled in favor of the City, indicating the plan was based on valid material unrelated to age (www.oyez.org/cases/2000–2009/2004/2004_03_1160).

Gross vs. FBL Financial Services (2008)

Jack Gross sued FBL under the ADEA, contending that they demoted him based on his age and the Federal District Court in Iowa agreed and awarded him $46,945. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that, for a mixed motive case under the ADEA, the burden of proof should not shift to the employer and held that the employee must provide a preponderance of evidence that age was the reason for the employer’s action (known as but-for cause) (http://oyez.org/cases/2000–2009/2008/2008_08_441).

Related Topics

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)

State Laws Prohibiting Age Discrimination in Employment

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

References

Baiocchi, L. (2009). But for? What for? SHRM Online. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/StandardofProof.aspx.

Deschenaux, J. (2009). EEOC focuses on age discrimination. SHRM Online. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/EEOCAgeDiscrimination.aspx

Grossman, R.J. (2008). Older workers: Running to the courthouse? HR Magazine, 53(6).

Guerin, L., & DelPo, A. (2006). The essential guide to federal employment laws. Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Oyez–U.S. Supreme Court Media. (2009). Retrieved July 20, 2009, from www.oyez.org/search/apachesolr_search/adea.

Repa, B.K. (2007). Your rights in the workplace (8th ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

SHRM. (2007). Module 2: Workforce planning and employment. Alexandria, VA: Author.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2009). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from www.eeoc.gov/

Walsh, J. (1995). Mastering diversity—Managing for success under ADA and other anti-discrimination laws. Santa Monica, CA: Merritt.

Wolkinson, B. (2008). Employment law: The workplace rights of employees and employers (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Websites

www.bls.org (US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

www.oyez.org (The Oyez Project—access to case law summary information)

www.shrm.org (Society for Human Resource Management)

ARTICLE 5

ADVERSE IMPACT

Kyle E. Brink

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency responsible for the enforcement of Title VII. The EEOC, jointly with other federal agencies, established the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in 1978 and a questions and answers document to help interpret these guidelines in 1979. Together, these two documents are more conveniently referred to as the Uniform Guidelines or UGESP and they serve as a set of guidelines to follow for ensuring compliance with Title VII. The Uniform Guidelines define adverse impact as a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decision which works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group (Uniform Guidelines Question 10). The Uniform Guidelines and adverse impact are most frequently discussed with respect to hiring or promoting employees, but they apply to virtually any employment decision that impacts one’s job standing (see Uniform Guidelines Section 2B and Question 6).

Implications of Adverse Impact

Adverse impact is generally the first step in establishing prima facie evidence of disparate impact, or unintentional discrimination, under Title VII. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that an employment decision adversely impacted a protected group. The finding of adverse impact shifts the burden of proof to the defendant and