Most of us are all too aware that in the short-term it’s less expensive to promote someone from within rather than hire someone from the outside. This is true for several reasons. First, an internal hire will be immediately more productive in the new position, assuming it’s an extension of the position they are currently in. External hires can take up to two years to reach the same level, regardless of their degrees and experience outside the firm.

Second, the external hire has to be “bought.” That is, the external hire comes with market-competitive pay expectations and, if they are leaving a secure job to come to your firm, are looking for financial incentives to move. Financial incentives to the tune of 10% to 20% more than you’d pay your internal candidate. But what about the long-term effects? Is it better to promote from within or find your talent in the external labor pool?

Matthew Bidwell, Wharton management professor, devoted six years of extensive research to this question by observing an investment banking firm. His findings are relevant to our industry since investment banking’s “organizational performance depends on the skills of the workforce” as does the organizational performance of insurance brokerages. Bidwell notes in his abstract on the Wharton website that not only are external hires pricier, they “get significantly lower performance evaluations for their first two years on the job than do internal workers who are promoted into similar jobs. They also have higher exit rates.”

The research also explains the effect on staff when plum jobs go to outsiders. Bidwell asks: “should internal people threaten to quit to raise their pay?” Not so quick he advised, because in some organizations “that’s an easy way to get fired. People will take it as a signal that you are disloyal,” and “if you like where you are, stay there. Or at least understand how hard it can be to take your skills with you. You think you can go to another job and perform well, but it takes a long time to build up to the same effectiveness that you had in your previous organization. You need to be aware that often your skills are much less portable than you think they are.”

Read the article, or print out Bidwell’s abstract.

It’s a sad state of affairs when college-educated, professional HR executives have to spend time counseling employees on appropriate attire at work. This issue seems to escalate as summer approaches and the warm weather leads to wardrobe changes and vacation mentalities. Recently, a bemused VP of HR was organizing what she was calling “cleavage meetings” with several employees to discuss what was clearly an issue in her office. Some people think this work is misguided. Said one manager: “If a woman wants to show the world her (fill in the blank), why in God’s green earth would a company stand in her way?”

Most firms believe giving employees guidelines is a best practice, and the data shows that inappropriate and unprofessional attire works against an employee interested in upward mobility. When implementing or enforcing a dress code a firm needs to ensure guidelines are business-related. An article on HRHero.com titled “Dress Codes and Employee Appearance,” asks “So can a business’ dress code policy prohibit its employees from wearing jeans, short skirts, tight-fitting clothes, muscle shirts and flip-flops? Can employers prohibit their employees from having visible tattoos or body piercings, wearing earrings (particularly multiples), and displaying funky hair?”

The answer is yes, but the article warns employers to be wary of discrimination claims due to dress code policies based on gender, religious practices and race. It also says to avoid strict grooming codes that prohibit tattoos and body piercings, and implementing attire restrictions without regard to position and level of external interface.

For more details read the article.

Check out The Council’s legally reviewed sample dress code policy, select Sample Employee Handbook, and click on the Professional Attire policy in the policy index. (A password is required.)

What is some of the self-defeating behavior of women aspiring to be effective leaders? Behavior that is the exact opposite of what you would expect from someone that seeks to influence and affect the behavior and performance of others. In her TED presentation “Why we have too few women leaders,”Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, makes several great points, the most startling and simple of which are the phenomena of intelligent and successful women pushing away from the table and of not raising their hands when in groups with men. Specifically, Sandberg references her own observation that when in groups, women  frequently take the chairs against the wall and leave the chairs at the table for the men, effectively minimizing their importance to the conversation. Similarly, she relates that when ending a presentation,  a group  was told there was only time for one more question.  The men kept their hands up while the women, according to Sandberg, lowered theirs because they felt their questions were not as important. Her advice: stay at the table, keep your hand up, and be an active participant.

In another article, “10 Ways to Become a Powerful Leader,” Joel Garfinkel tells the story of a female executive who changed her personality on the job, and in due course took “a back seat to her powerful leader she once was earlier in her career.” While she initially blamed this change on the culture in her organization and sought to leave, she ultimately  realized she had voluntarily surrendered her power because she “was fearful she would say something that would be seen as wrong and thus she would be reprimanded.”

Garfinkel offers 10 ways to find the powerful leader within, including knowing and engaging with staff, becoming more visible, speaking your mind and finding your edge.

The old benefits brokerage model is broken and the free market system will lead the way to true healthcare reform. The delivery and distribution systems will follow the money. We will ultimately move to a consumer-based model. Our current, ailing healthcare system will soon face additional pressures as a result of the new healthcare reform law. The only way to fundamentally transform the system, improve the quality of care and effectively address the unsustainable cost trend is through promoting and enabling proactive consumers.

The system must change from reactively providing care to proactively encouraging wellness. For this change to occur, consumers must make informed choices about their healthcare while better managing their health.

The more you think about the powerful effect of “standing by” someone else, the more you realize we should do more of this on the job. Standing by someone involves trust, reliability, empathy and understanding. It is benevolent but also guarantees that when it’s your turn to ask for support, it will be there.

Try the following to make a positive difference in both the quality of work relationships and the results you get when interacting with others.