Recently, the Department of Labor (DOL) published an updated “FMLA Advisor” together with updated forms. Shortly thereafter, the Branch Chief for FMLA, Diane Dawson, reported that the DOL expects to increase the frequency in which it will come on-site during FMLA investigations – an indication of increased involvement and activity.
This is part 2 of a 3-part post on why companies should eliminate the traditional annual performance review, what the alternatives are and how to do it successfully.
My first post highlighted why the annual performance review process is broken and why feedback should be given often -- monthly or every two weeks -- whatever works for the organization. It shouldn't be overcomplicated with a bunch of forms and boxes to check off.
Even with the best intentions, there are still times when our communications (or our failure to communicate) end up leading us down the wrong path. When this takes place, it is necessary to restate, repair or recover from a misstep or misstatement. We waste even more time sorting out the damage than we hoped to have avoided if we had dealt with something using thoughtfulness and careful attention the first time around.
Imagine the following scenario:
Lacking internal resources, a company out-sources IT functions for a technology-based project. To meet the company’s needs, this “QA Project” is ultimately staffed with four IT professionals, none of whom is from the same agency or a company employee. Rather, each is an employee of the placement agency from which they came, on a contract assignment with the company.