Human Resources Memo: It's Time to Transform Human Resources Management From the Old Personnel Department Model to HR 2.0

All to often in the food and grocery industry, particularly in natural and specialty foods companies where HR staffs are small or extremely lean and often limited in their duties, the human resources function tends to be limited primarily to three tasks: posting new job announcements and conducting initial interviews of potential new hires, processing paperwork, and responding to questions from employees about things like health insurance and other personnel issues. This is really the old "personnel department" model rather than what HR was supposed to look like when corporate America drop the former title in favor of the latter.

Each of these functions are needed and worthy ones. However, they tend to take up about 90% of a human resources department's time and efforts, leaving about 10% of staff time for employee development and related purposes and programs.

In today's fast-changing food and grocery industry, be it at retail, in manufacturing, distribution and logistics, marketing or sales, employee education and development has never been more important. In today's knowledge-based and digital economy and marketplace, human resources are fast-becoming the most important asset a food or grocery industry company has.

A big part of the problem with the HR function not just in the food and grocery industry but in all industries, is that HR has yet to truly be viewed by company CEO's and other top leaders as an important strategic partner in a corporation or businesses overall strategic plan and goals.

In today's challenging, human resource based economy and marketplace, that type of thinking is out of sink with reality. In fact, those companies who are making HR an integral strategic partner within their operations are seeing the fruits of gaining a competitive advantage over others who aren't yet doing so.

For example, it isn't an accident that in the food and grocery retailing sector, Whole Foods Market, Inc. and regional supermarket chain Wegmans, both being companies that have made HR a strategic partner in their operations, just happen to be two of the most successful food retailers in the U.S., as well as being the only two food retailing chains regularly named as two of the top 100 companies to work for in America.

In the food manufacturing segment, global giant Nestle continues to make HR a key partner in all the company does. Again, it's no accident Nestle is arguably the world's leading and most innovative consumer packaged goods company. The company's major push into the natural and wellness segment was do in part to ideas developed internally from the bottom up from Nestle employees, for example.

the consulting firm Deloitte Consulting LLP has been taking a close look at the current state of the HR function in corporate America. For example, here's what two of the firm's researchers say in the introduction to a just-published article, "Taking HR to the Next Level," based on a study the firm conducted titled: "Human Resources Transformation:"

"Seeing isn’t always believing. We’ve all experienced optical illusions that make us think an object is larger or smaller than it actually is. If the corporate world isn’t suffering from an optical illusion, it may have a problem with perception, especially where the human resources (HR) function is concerned. Even with a talent shortage and an increasingly competitive marketplace, companies often fail to see HR as a strategic partner. By the same token, HR itself may not realize how important a role it has to play in creating value for a company that goes well beyond cost savings."

You can read the article by Michael Boedewig, a principal at Deloitte Consulting LLP, and Jan Steele, one of its senior managers, at the link here: Taking HR to the Next Level. The study on which the article is based can be read at the link here: Human Resources Transformation. There's also an overview or summary of the study here: Human Capital. The consulting firm also has the article available as a podcast here.

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo believes the transformation of the HR function is important in order for companies in the food and grocery industry to remain competitive and to innovate.

Additionally, medium and small companies in the natural and specialty foods segments aren't prohibited from transforming and innovating the HR function just because they have small departments.

Rather, having small HR departments actually is a good argument for integrating the function better into a company's strategic, cross-departmental framework and strategy. Even smaller companies that compete in niche industry segments can benefit from this new HR thinking and implementation. In fact, they might benefit even more from a competitive standpoint than larger industry companies will.

Key to the success of this new HR strategic paradigm is not only leadership from the top of the company, but buy-in and participation from all employees. When workers--from senior executives and managers, to rank and file employees--see a genuine effort from management to integrate human and organizational development into a company's overall strategic framework, they generally respond positively, as have those at Whole Foods, Wegmans, Nestle and numerous other industry companies big and small.

Smart thinkers, leaders and managers will take a close look at "Human Resources Management 2.0," since more and more competitive advantage means having the best human resources vis-a-vis your competitors.

Human Resources Memo: Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Could Have Major Influence on Future Human Resource Practices in the U.S.

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo Editor's Note: The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of two workers, one an African American employee of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain and the other a female U.S. Postal Service worker over the age of 45, who had filed two respective lawsuits against their employers, one over race discrimination and the other over age discrimination.

In their respective lawsuits the workers charged they were retaliated against by their employers based on ethnicity or race and age. The court ruled overwhelming in the majority for both employees and against their employers.

Numerous court watchers and employer/employee relations experts are saying Tuesday's Supreme Court decision will change the behavior some employers show regarding their minority and older workers. These experts also are saying the decision should alert employers to the steps they take when deciding to fire an employee, especially those who are in what's called a "protected class," such as minority race status and age, in the U.S.

The Associated Press (AP) has a report on the Supreme Court ruling, which is a significant and important one for employee/employer relations. Read the full AP report below:

Court OKs suits on retaliation in race, age cases

Tue, May. 27, 2008

By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- An unexpected blend of liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices gave workers more leeway Tuesday to sue when they face retaliation after complaining about discrimination in the workplace.

In two employment cases, one involving race and the other, age, the court took an expansive view of workers' rights and avoided the narrow, ideology-based decisions that marked its previous term.

The justices read parts of an 1860s civil rights act and the main anti-age bias law to include the right to sue over reprisals even though neither provision expressly prohibits retaliation.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court in a case involving a black employee at a Cracker Barrel restaurant who was fired, said that previous Supreme Court decisions and congressional action make clear that retaliation is covered.

The idea that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, known as section 1981, "encompasses retaliation claims is indeed well-embedded in the law," Breyer said in the 7-2 ruling.

The outcomes contrasted with rulings last term in which conservative majorities insisted on literal readings of federal laws over the objections of liberal dissenters who favored more expansive interpretations.

On Tuesday, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy joined their more liberal colleagues in both rulings. Indeed, Alito wrote the court's opinion allowing a federal employee to pursue retaliation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The vote in that case was 6-3.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in the age case, but was part of the majority in the race retaliation case.

Roberts and Alito "have been so true to the plain language of the statute. I was really surprised," said Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented in both cases. "Retaliation is not discrimination based on race," Thomas wrote in the Cracker Barrel case.

The decisions also displayed other emerging trends of the term - rulings favorable to workers in employment discrimination cases and the absence of 5-4 decisions. There has been only one 5-4 decision so far.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president Robin Conrad said she has been puzzled by the court's repeated rulings against employers, particularly after last term's string of victories for business interests.

Conrad said Roberts, in particular, may be reacting to the criticism of the court after the 5-4 decision last year against Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. employee.

In an opinion written by Alito, the court threw out Ledbetter's pay discrimination claim because she missed a strict deadline in civil rights law.

"I would have to think there is some connection there because our batting average this term is pretty bad in labor and employment cases," Conrad said.

William L. Taylor, a veteran civil rights lawyer in Washington, said the Cracker Barrel decision shows that the Roberts court will not engage in "an across-the-board decimation of civil rights ... I think it's cause for at least a small celebration."

The Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business argued that the absence of an explicit prohibition on retaliation was significant and said employees should have to file suit under another law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law requires prompt notification of the employer, has a shorter deadline for filing suit and caps the amount of money that a successful plaintiff may recover.

The Bush administration was on the side of the workers in the Cracker Barrel case.

The case grew out of the firing of a black associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley, Ill. Hedrick Humphries claimed he was fired after he complained about race discrimination by other Cracker Barrel supervisors.

Humphries filed a lawsuit claiming both discrimination and retaliation. Both claims were dismissed by a federal judge and only the retaliation claim was appealed.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Humphries could pursue his retaliation claim under section 1981. The high court upheld the appeals court ruling.

In the age retaliation case, Alito concluded for the court that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit.

The anti-age bias law does specifically bar reprisals against private sector employees who complain about discrimination. But it is silent as to federal workers. Alito said the law applies to both categories of employees.

The case involves Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker in Puerto Rico who alleged she was being discriminated against because of her age. Gomez-Perez, who was then 45, said that after she filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, she suffered a "series of reprisals" from her supervisors.

Gomez-Perez sued under the ADEA, claiming retaliation in violation of the law.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a lower court's dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.

The administration, which is backing workers in other age bias cases at the high court, said the ADEA does not afford federal workers protection from retaliation. It said Congress could have extended protections to federal workers, but didn't.

Both decisions relied, in part, on a 2005 ruling that called retaliation another form of intentional, unlawful discrimination under Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education. Title IX, like the two laws at issue, also doesn't explicitly talk about reprisals.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that 5-4 decision. She has since retired and been replaced by Alito.

Some employment lawyers thought that the change in the high court personnel could be significant.

The cases are Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 06-1321, and CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 06-1431.