According to an article in HR News from the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), a May 2006 survey that found more than 50 percent of office workers now take only 30 minutes or less for lunch.

The survey also found that employees have apparently cut down their lunchtime to get more work done, with more than 60 percent of U.S. office workers saying the 60-minute lunch is the biggest myth of office life. Less than 10 percent take the full 60 minutes or more for lunch.

Also, 58 percent eat lunch at their desks while working and more than half (56 percent) spend their lunch break eating, running errands, shopping online and checking e-mails, according to the survey by Louisville, Ky.-based KFC fast-food company.

These findings certainly underscore today’s “get more done is less time” attitude, demonstrated by many managers, often with a hint to staff members to do the same. While this dedication to the job is admirable, we see at least two potential downsides:

1. Although working through some or all of the lunch hour may be fine for exempt (salaried) employees, non-exempt employees in most cases will be able to claim this time as “time worked”, which may qualify them for overtime pay if the normal working hours plus the time worked during the lunch period add up to more than 40 hours per week. We suggest you find out how many of your non-exempt staff are working through lunch, and implement a policy that either allows non-exempt employees to work their lunch period, with boss approval, (and be paid for it), or reinforces your expectation (or work rule) that non-exempt employees will take their full lunch period.
2. We think that taking at least 15 or 20 minutes in the middle of the day to “stop and smell the roses” or even take a brisk walk around the block is beneficial to both employees and employers. Getting re-energized for the rest of the day is important, and finding time to relax, read a book, call a friend, or whatever may help reduce some stress will make the second half of the day more productive. We realize getting personal chores done at lunchtime may be necessary some work days, but taking time for just you benefits everyone.

According to a three-year study by Leadership IQ, a global leadership training and research company, 46% of newly-hired employees will fail within 18 months, while only 19% will achieve unequivocal success. But contrary to popular belief, technical skills are not the primary reason why new hires fail; instead, poor interpersonal skills dominate the list, flaws which many of their managers admit were overlooked during the interview process.

The study included over 5,000 hiring managers and 20,000+ new hires, and found that 26% of new hires fail because they can't accept feedback, 23% because they're unable to understand and manage emotions, 17% because they lack the necessary motivation to excel, 15% because they have the wrong temperament for the job, and only 11% because they lack the necessary technical skills.

While the failure rate for new hires is distressing, it should not be surprising: 82% of managers reported that in hindsight, their interview process with these employees elicited subtle clues that they would be headed for trouble. But during the interviews, managers were too focused on other issues, too pressed for time, or lacked confidence in their interviewing abilities to heed the warning signs.
The study tracked the success and failure of new hires and interviewed managers about their hiring tactics and new hires' performance, personality and potential. Upon completing 5,247 interviews, Leadership IQ compiled, categorized and distilled the top five reasons why new hires failed (i.e., were terminated, left under pressure, received disciplinary action or significantly negative performance reviews). The following are the top areas of failure, matched with the percentage of respondents.

Coachability (26%): The ability to accept and implement feedback from bosses, colleagues, customers and others.
Emotional Intelligence (23%): The ability to understand and manage one's own emotions, and accurately assess others' emotions.

Motivation (17%): Sufficient drive to achieve one's full potential and excel in the job.

Temperament (15%): Attitude and personality suited to the particular job and work environment.

Technical Competence (11%): Functional or technical skills required to do the job.

How do your hiring managers assess Coachability, Emotional Intelligence, Motivation and Temperament? Do they just concentrate on technical competence? We can help your organization assess these and many other qualities and personal competencies. Our assessment instruments combined with solid interviewing techniques can increase your success with new hires dramatically! Please call us to find out how. Toll free 1-866-529-3971.

As distressing as the rate of new hire failures is, CEOs don’t have a great track record of success either. The commonly-held belief is that most CEOs get fired (or forced to resign or retire under pressure) due to “financial performance”, but another study by Leadership IQ says that’s wrong.

This comprehensive study promised absolute confidentiality to get the most common answers to the open-ended question: "So why did the CEO REALLY get fired or forced out?" The following are the top five responses with the percentage of respondents who gave this response (percentages exceed 100% because some respondents gave more than one answer).

Mismanaging change (31%): Virtually every organization indicated they were undergoing, or had recently undergone, a change initiative. However, half of board members said that their change initiative did not go well. Most pointed to a failure on the CEO's part to properly motivate employees and managers, and more specifically, to adequately sell the need to change course. Another group identified the CEO's inability to follow-through and solidify the gains as the cause of failure.
Ignoring customers (28%): Board members overwhelmingly said that if a CEO ignores or alienates customers, it not only undermines the business and revenue, but it significantly undermines board support. Board members said their test for whether the CEO was sufficiently engaged in the business was the extent to which they evidenced intimate knowledge of customers, customer needs and developing trends.

Tolerating low performers (27%): Board members shared that when CEOs allowed an obvious low performer to linger (without any improvement or discipline), it destroyed the CEO's credibility and made it politically difficult for them to hold others accountable. Board members also complained of CEOs becoming too emotionally attached to a low performer(s) whether from loyalty, fear of being seen as too harsh, or unrealistic optimism. Significantly, Board members also suspected that, in numerous cases, CEOs covered for poor performers out of fear that they might divulge embarrassing or indicting information.

Denying reality (23%): Board members overwhelming said they could handle bad news and significant course corrections. What they couldn't handle was a CEO who was in denial and wouldn't recognize the bad news. Many board members felt that they were closer to the market and customers than the ousted CEO, and a significant percentage said the CEO was far too insulated from frontline realities. Board members also said they would rather have bad news and a plan to fix it, than they would no news or sugarcoated news.

Too much talk, not enough action (22%): There were many comments about CEOs talking the talk, but being unable to walk the walk. Numerous board members complained that CEOs could talk endlessly about grand visions and new strategies, but would both neglect a tactical plan for the "who, what, when and where," as well as evidence of its implementation. One board member commented that their former CEO "gives good meetings," but little else.

We love the Monster Board, and we’ve had great success for almost ten years posting jobs and searching their resume database. That’s why we pay them so much money every year for those services! But if you’re not buying a “subscription” like we are, the cost for a single job posting is now $395, with more increases predicted for sometime next year. Starting in 2007, our clients will pay only $250 per job posting, which is over a 35% savings if we conduct the search. And for the rest of 2006, we’ll give you a FREE Monster Board posting for each new search assignment you give us. All you have to do is mention our newsletter Monster Board offer when you talk to one of our consultants about starting a search assignment and we’ll give you the posting FREE!

Our SEARCHnet® staffing process typically costs less than HALF of contingency or retained search. If you’re not familiar with our recruiting services, please call us for more information about other benefits, including a no-cost Interviewing Skills workshop for local clients.

Another recent article from SHRM cited a survey that lauded the benefits of “water cooler” chit-chat. The survey found that informal discussions around the water cooler or in the lunchroom can often lead to new ideas, strong work relationships and improved team camaraderie, which in turn can increase productivity.

Not surprisingly, few executives agreed: 41% said it had no effect on productivity and another 34% said the time wasted decreases productivity. Only 21% agreed productivity increases were a result of gossip at the water cooler. Gossip? I thought these conversations were full of new ideas that improve team spirit! Well, the caveat is that “Conversations should not interfere with work that needs to be done. If talks steer away from business issues and continue for extended periods of time, it’s distracting to others. In these cases, the dialogue should be continued after working hours.” Yeah, right….

Which leads me to another article from the June issue of the Journal of Personal Relationships, which cited that whether it happens around the water cooler or not, small talk in which people share a dislike for someone or something can create a sense of closeness and friendship among those who dish. Oh, so trash talking builds camaraderie, which leads to increased productivity? Hmmm.let us know what YOU think!

Last of all, giving full credit to the SHRM article, they astutely cited the famous quote by the daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, Alice Roosevelt Long, who said, “If you can’t say anything good about someone, sit right here by me.”