Canadian HR Reporter

January 27, 2014 INSIGHT CANADIAN HR REPORTER 31 There's plenty of give, take in manager-employee relationship One person's idea of relationship heaven could be another person's definition of hell The manager-employee relationship is like any other — whether it's one with our friends, our lovers or the guy selling hotdogs outside the office. It works well when there is a fair exchange between give and take. But when either person feels they are giving more than they are getting, resentment seeps in, the relationship erodes and the outcomes are rarely good. Relationships are a deal The opportunity in every relationship is to figure out expectations at the outset. Too often, assumptions are made about what the "relationship deal" is. Sometimes, it is discovered too late in the game that some of these assumptions were flawed. What we expect from any relationship is unique, driven by our personal histories, values and life situation. One person's idea of a great relationship deal is often another person's definition of hell on earth. One employee with a huge need to balance work and family may be prepared to put up with an incompetent manager in exchange for flexible hours, reasonable work demands and a short commute. The manager may also put up with this employee's lack of ambition, creativity and office etiquette because she is reliably performing a hard-to-fill role. By their respective definitions, lives are full of intangibles that are just as important. And often more work needs to be devoted to making the intangibles of relationships more concrete at the outset. Sue Nador Guest Commentary the relationship works because each has expectations that are being met. But this type of deal may stink for another employee-manager duo. The employee may have higher expectations of a manager, wanting one who can satisfy a need for coaching and mentorship while stretching work opportunities that would support ambitious plans to climb the corporate ladder. In exchange, the employee is prepared to work like a dog to support the manager's own need to have a winning team and shine in front of executive team. Alignment of expectations All employees sign on the dotted line to accept the tangibles of employment — how much they will be paid, the benefits they are entitled to and the key responsibilities they will assume. But our working Being clear about what one is willing to give and what one is expecting to get in return lays the foundation for a strong employee-manager relationship.  It's important to have a conversation between a manager and employee to figure out where expectations align (and where they don't). Knowing where there are disconnects can help those involved bridge expectations, create work-around solutions or bail before the relationship advances too far. It's easier to fix things before they are broken, much harder to repair a relationship that is crumbling. Performance, feedback and work style: Relationship deal components What are the relationship buckets that should be part of the manager-employee relationship deal? At a minimum: Expectations on performance:  Setting goals (during orientation or as part of the subsequent annual review) is the How long should a new hire have to sign an employment contract? Question: How much time is appropriate to allow for a new hire to look over an employment contract or seek legal advice before signing? What should an employer do if the employee wants to sign right away? Answer: While there is no hard and fast rule, three business days is generally accepted as a fair and reasonable amount of time. There are a few purposes served by giving a potential employee time to review an employment contract. First, and perhaps most fundamental, it's the fair thing to do. However, it is also wise from a business perspective. Canadian courts have long recognized the relationship between an employer and prospective employee is typically not one of equal bargaining power. As such, if an employer seeks to rely on the terms of a written employment contract — often at the time of termination — the employer must demonstrate the contract is lawful and the employee entered into it freely, voluntarily and with an understanding of its meaning, having had time to seek advice as to its meaning. Allowing an employee time to carefully review a contract can be critical to demonstrating the em- Brian Wasyliw Toughest HR Question ployee either understood the contract or had the chance to obtain advice as to its meaning. Often, this is why it is also prudent to include in the contract a statement that the worker was afforded the opportunity, and was encouraged, to seek independent legal advice. At a minimum, three business days is a reasonable time frame for a potential employee to avail herself of the benefit of a contract review (whether by herself or with independent counsel). Should an employee wish to sign the contract immediately, without the benefit of a review period, the employer should resist this and consider ways to encourage slowing down the process. In appropriate circumstances, easy part, confirming that there is a shared understanding of what "exceeds expectations" versus "meets expectations" looks like; respective roles in meeting this might include making a financial contribution towards the employee having the contract reviewed by independent counsel — particularly where the potential liability would be significant if the employer was later unable to rely on the contract language. A financial contribution might be a small price to pay toward solidifying the enforceability of the contract. Finally, it is important to have the contract signed by the new employee before she commences her first day at work. If the contract is signed after work has already commenced, it is possible the employee could later argue she was not given anything identifiable in exchange for signing the contract ("consideration") since the employee was already in possession of the job before signing the contract. As such, execution of the contract prior to the commencement of work is an important element of ensuring it is later enforceable for the employer. Brian Wasyliw is a lawyer at Sherrard Kuzz, a management-side employment and labour law firm in Toronto. He can be reached at (416) 603-0700 or visit www.sherrardkuzz.com for more information. these objectives, and where the manager's mandate ends and the employee's begins is a deeper conversation that supports a strong relationship. Employees also want to know if they give a certain level of performance, what will they get in terms of career development, compensation and other rewards? Expectations on feedback: Feedback is important to most people, but it's often difficult to be honest when it comes to providing constructive feedback — particularly when it comes to an employee giving this kind of feedback to managers. This is made easier when the criteria have been determined upfront. There are many areas in which feedback can matter, such as leadership style, work quality and teamwork. Defining what the desired behaviours look like together (such as what strong teamwork entails) focuses the conversation in an objective way that leads to constructive outcomes. Expectations on work style:  Liking someone and working with him can be two different things. You can like someone in small doses and start to find them completely irritating on a day-to-day basis. Managers and employees have an opportunity to contract about how they want to work together as partners. This includes figuring out: the right balance between autonomy and co-operation; the best type of communication to discuss trivial versus more substantive matters; and the boundaries in the relationship (such as expectations for sharing details about non-work/ personal things). Being clear about what one is willing to give and what one is expecting to get in return lays the foundation for a strong employee-manager relationship. And in an era where we are focused on talent, productivity and engagement, isn't the investment in time and effort worth it?  Sue Nador is a relationship strategist, helping to hash out expectations in the messy world of work. She actively blogs on the topic of personal relationships too. For more information, visit www.therelationshipdeal.com. LETTER TO THE EDITOR A solution to the CPP controversy My proposal is that all employees contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) according to the following graduated schedule, based on years of employment and proximity to age 65, with automatic escalation at specific points in time. The federal government already has the infrastructure in place to track employees' work history and can notify employers when to increase employee contributions. Using years of employment to specify contribution levels, in years zero to five, the employees would contribute six per cent of earnings up to $3,000 per year. In years six to 10, it would rise to eight per cent (maximum $4,000); in years 11 to 15, it would rise to 10 per cent (maximum $6,000); in years 16 to 20, it would rise to 12 per cent (maximum $8,000); and in years 21-plus, it would be 14 per cent (maximum $10,000). I also propose that employer contributions be fixed at five per cent of employee earnings, up to $2,000 per year. Although this is a substantial increase to current employee contribution levels, it will result in a substantial increase in CPP retirement and disability benefits. It would also reduce the number of employees working past age 65 out of financial necessity, which will create opportunities for younger employees. Also, if I am working past age 65 out of financial need, how motivated and productive will I be to my employer? I suggest that the CPP contributions be split as follows: •100 per cent of employer contributions for retirement and disability benefits •100 per cent of employee contributions to the contributor's own CPP account. Implementation can be immediate, not phased in over several years. Graeme Simpson Professor, Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto

• Cover