HR Professional - June/July 2008 - (Page 12)

UPFRONT H R ’ S P E R S O N A L I T Y | E M P L O Y E E S U RV E Y | D R U G T E S T I N G © I S T O C K P H O T O /J O E P E R A G I N O BY THE NUMBERS C-Suite The HR personality In a C-suite swimming with sharks, the HR executive is the lone dolphin, according to a recent study ti i th l d l hi di t t td on the “HR personality” commissioned by HR Executive magazine. The U.S. publication asked several talent assessment ﬁrms to provide a personality proﬁle of the typical HR executive and compare it against executives from other business functions, as well as the CEO. The ﬁrms pulled data from thousands of personality tests given to HR executives— mostly vice-presidents and above—over a number of years. The ﬁndings indicated that both HR and other execs are equally adept at thinking strategically, but the differences are illuminating. ABSENCE MAKES THE TEAM UNEASY FOR MOST EMPLOYEES, A BOSS’S ABSENCE IS LESS A CAUSE FOR JUBILATION AND MORE A TIME FOR FRETFULNESS, ACCORDING TO A RECENT SURVEY. NEARLY HALF (48 PER CENT) OF WORKERS POLLED SAID THEIR JOBS WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT IF THEY DID NOT WORK IN THE SAME OFFICE AS THEIR SUPERVISORS. EMPLOYEES WERE ASKED, “WOULD IT MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER OR MORE DIFFICULT IF YOUR MANAGER DIDN’T WORK IN THE SAME OFFICE?” THEIR RESPONSES: Compared to other execs, HR scores much higher in traits such as empathy and consideration for others. They’re also more intuitive, have a deeper understanding of how others see the world, favour teamwork over a star environment, and are better at building trust and relationships. At the same time, the data suggests HR leaders are less competitive than other executives, says study author Scott Flander. “With HR, they’re more likely to give up the win to keep the peace.” “According to the study, the HR personality is more inclined to think of staff if there’s an initiative that may hurt people but is good for the bottom line,” says Flander. “They’re the conscious of the company.” Case Law D R U G T E S T D I S M I S S A L N O T D I S C R I M I N AT I O N AT The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that termination for failing a pre-employment drug test does not constitute discrimination on the basis of perceived disability. The ruling on Chiasson vs. Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) was issued in late December 2007. The case involved an admitted casual pot smoker who was ﬁred after failing a pre-employment drug screen. The man was hired by oilpatch services ﬁrm KBR on condition he pass the test. After he failed, ©ISTOCKPHOTO/BULENT INCE 27% 21% 26% 13% 8% 5% MUCH MORE DIFFICULT SOMEWHAT MORE DIFFICULT NEITHER EASIER NOR MORE DIFFICULT SOMEWHAT EASIER MUCH EASIER DON’T KNOW Source: OfficeTeam he admitted smoking pot ﬁve days before the test. He was subsequently ﬁred. The Court of Appeal upheld the original Alberta Human Rights Hearing Panel decision, noting the man was a selfadmitted recreational pot smoker and not suffering from drug addiction. The court also ruled the termination was not based on the perception by the employer that he was drug-addicted—meaning there was no basis to assert discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability. The decision assists Alberta employers in defending challenges to pre-employment alcohol and drug screening tests in safetysensitive positions. The court speciﬁcally acknowledged the importance of safety in dangerous work environments. Recently, numerous challenges have been raised under human rights and privacy legislation on the legality of drug testing. Source: McCarthy Tetrault 12 J u n e / J u l y 2 0 0 8 HR P R OF E S S I ON A L

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of HR Professional - June/July 2008

HR Professional - June/July 2008 Contents Editor's Letter Contributors Leadership Matters Upfront Legal Compensation The Broad Perspective Leading by Example On Message Strategy Talent Management HR 101 Case Study Interview with J.P. Pawliw-Fry Off the Shelf The Last Word HR Suppliers Guide 2008 Calendar of Events

HR Professional - June/July 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.