Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit
文章讨论了在Workday诉讼中，代理法的相关法律问题。原告声称，Workday的AI筛选工具因种族、年龄和残疾而对他进行了歧视。这起案件提出了HR技术供应商是否可以对歧视性结果直接负责的问题。法律的复杂性包括AI在招聘决策中的角色、代理责任以及对雇主和AI开发者的潜在影响。此案件提醒雇主在实施AI招聘工具时要谨慎，并确保避免法律风险。AI开发者也必须确保其产品无歧视行为，因为该诉讼可能会树立重要的法律先例。
Editor's Note
Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit
Agency law is so old that it used to be called master and servant law. (That's different from slavery, where human beings were considered the legal property of other humans based on their race, gender, and age, which is partly why we have discrimination laws.)
Today, agency laws refer to principals and agents. All employees are agents of their employer, who is the principal. And employers can have nonemployee agents too when they hire someone to do things on their behalf. Generally, agents owe principals a fiduciary duty to act in the principal's best interest, even when that isn't the agent's best interest.
Agency laws gets tricky fast because you have to figure out who is in charge, what authority was granted, whether the person acting was inside or outside that authority, what duty applies, and who should be held responsible as a matter of fairness and public policy.
Generally, the principal is liable for the acts of the agent, sometimes even when the agent acts outside their authority. And agents acting within their authority are rarely liable for their actions unless it also involves intentional wrongs, like punching someone in the nose.
Enter discrimination, which is generally a creature of statute that may or may not be consistent with general agency law even when the words used are exactly the same.
Discrimination is generally an intentional wrong, but employees are not usually directly liable for discrimination because making employment decisions is part of the way employment works and the employer is always liable for those decisions.
The big exception is harassment because harassment, particularly sexual harassment, is never part of someone's job duties. So in harassment cases, the individual harasser is liable but the employer may not be unless they knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it.
It's confusing and makes your head hurt. And that's just federal discrimination law. Other employment laws, both state and federal, deal with agent liability differently.
Now, let's move to the Workday lawsuit. In that case, the plaintiff is claiming that Workday was an agent of the employer, but not in the sense of someone the employer was directing. They are claiming that Workday has independent liability as an employer too because they were acting like an employer in screening and rejecting applicants for the employer.
But that's kinda the whole point of HR Technology—to save the employer time and resources by doing some of the work. The software doesn't replace the employer's decision making and the employer is going to be liable for any discrimination regardless of whether and how the employer used their software.
If this were a products liability case, the answer would turn on how the product was designed to be used and how the employer used it. But this is an employment law and discrimination case. So, the legal question here is whether a company that makes HR Technology can also be directly liable for discriminatory outcomes when the employer uses that technology.
We don't have an answer to that yet and won't for a while. That's because this case is just at the pleading stage and hasn't been decided based on the evidence. What's happened so far is Workday filed a motion to dismiss based on the allegations in the complaint. Basically, Workday said, "Hey, we're just a software company. We don't make employment decisions; the employer does. It's the employer who is responsible for using our software in a way that doesn't discriminate. So, please let us out of the case. Then the plaintiff and EEOC said it's too soon to decide that. If all of the allegations in the lawsuit are considered true, then the plaintiff has made viable legal claims against Workday.
Those claims are that Workday's screening function acts like the employer in evaluating applications and rejecting or accepting them for the next level of review. This is similar to what third party recruiters and other employment agencies do and those folks are generally liable for those decisions under discrimination law. In addition, Workday could even be an agent of the employer if the employer has directly delegated that screening function to the software.
We're not to the question of whether a software company is really an agent of the employer or is even acting like an employment agency. And even if it is, whether it's the kind of agency that has direct liability or whether it's just the employer who ends up liable. This will all depend on statutory definitions and actual evidence about how the software is designed, how it works, and how the employer used it.
We also aren't at the point where we look at the contracts between the employer and Workday, how liability is allocated, whether there are indemnity clauses, and whether these type of contractual defenses even apply if Workday meets the statutory definition of an employer or agent who can be liable under Title VII.
Causation will also be a big issue because how the employer sets up the software, it's level of supervision of what happens with the software, and what's really going on in the screening process will all be extremely important.
The only thing that's been decided so far is that the plaintiff filed a viable claim against Workday and the lawsuit can proceed. Here are the details of the case and some good general advice for employers using HR Technology in any employment decision making process.
- Heather Bussing
AI Workplace Screener Faces Bias Lawsuit: 5 Lessons for Employers and 5 Lessons for AI Developers
by Anne Yarovoy Khan, John Polson, and Erica Wilson
at Fisher Phillips
A California federal court just allowed a frustrated job applicant to proceed with an employment discrimination lawsuit against an AI-based vendor after more than 100 employers that use the vendor’s screening tools rejected him. The judge’s July 12 decision allows the class action against Workday to continue based on employment decisions made by Workday’s customers on the theory that Workday served as an “agent” for all of the employers that rejected him and that its algorithmic screening tools were biased against his race, age, and disability status. The lawsuit can teach valuable lessons to employers and AI developers alike. What are five things that employers can learn from this case, and what are five things that AI developers need to know?
AI Job Screening Tool Leads to 100+ Rejections
Here is a quick rundown of the allegations contained in the complaint. It’s important to remember that this case is in the very earliest stages of litigation, and Workday has not yet even provided a direct response to the allegations – so take these points with a grain of salt and recognize that they may even be proven false.
Derek Mobley is a Black man over the age of 40 who self-identifies as having anxiety and depression. He has a degree in finance from Morehouse College and extensive experience in various financial, IT help-desk, and customer service positions.
Between 2017 and 2024, Mobley applied to more than 100 jobs with companies that use Workday’s AI-based hiring tools – and says he was rejected every single time. He would see a job posting on a third-party website (like LinkedIn), click on the job link, and be redirected to the Workday platform.
Thousands of companies use Workday’s AI-based applicant screening tools, which include personality and cognitive tests. They then interpret a candidate’s qualifications through advanced algorithmic methods and can automatically reject them or advance them along the hiring process.
Mobley alleges the AI systems reflect illegal biases and rely on biased training data. He notes the fact that his race could be identified because he graduated from a historically Black college, his age could be determined by his graduation year, and his mental disabilities could be revealed through the personality tests.
He filed a federal lawsuit against Workday alleging race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, age discrimination under the ADEA, and disability discrimination under the ADA.
But he didn’t file just any type of lawsuit. He filed a class action claim, seeking to represent all applicants like him who weren’t hired because of the alleged discriminatory screening process.
Workday asked the court to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was not the employer making the employment decision regarding Mobley, but after over a year of procedural wrangling, the judge gave the green light for Mobley to continue his lawsuit.
Judge Gives Green Light to Discrimination Claim Against AI Developer
Direct Participation in Hiring Process is Key – The judge’s July 12 order says that Workday could potentially be held liable as an “agent” of the employers who rejected Mobley. The employers allegedly delegated traditional hiring functions – including automatically rejecting certain applicants at the screening stage – to Workday’s AI-based algorithmic decision-making tools. That means that Workday’s AI product directly participated in the hiring process.
Middle-of-the-Night Email is Critical – One of the allegations Mobley raises to support his claim that Workday’s AI decision-making tool automatically rejected him was an application he submitted to a particular company at 12:55 a.m. He received a rejection email less than an hour later at 1:50 a.m., making it appear unlikely that human oversight was involved.
“Disparate Impact” Theory Can Be Advanced – Once the judge decided that Workday could be a proper defendant as an agent, she then allowed Mobley to proceed against Workday on a “disparate impact” theory. That means the company didn’t necessarily intend to screen out Mobley based on race, age, or disability, but that it could have set up selection criteria that had the effect of screening out applicants based on those protected criteria. In fact, in one instance, Mobley was rejected for a job at a company where he was currently working on a contract basis doing very similar work.
Not All Software Developers On the Hook – This decision doesn’t mean that all software vendors and AI developers could qualify as “agents” subject to a lawsuit. Take, for example, a vendor that develops a spreadsheet system that simply helps employers sort through applicants. That vendor shouldn’t be part of any later discrimination lawsuit, the court said, even if the employer later uses that system to purposefully sort the candidates by age and rejects all those over 40 years old.
5 Tips for Employers
This lawsuit could have just easily been filed against any of the 100+ employers that rejected Mobley, and they still may be added as parties or sued in separate actions. That is a stark reminder that employers need to tread carefully when implementing AI hiring solutions through third parties. A few tips:
Vet Your Vendors – Ensure your AI vendors follow ethical guidelines and have measures in place to prevent bias before you deploy the tool. This includes understanding the data they use to train their models and the algorithms they employ. Regular audits and evaluations of the AI systems can help identify and mitigate potential biases – but it all starts with asking the right questions at the outset of the relationship and along the way.
Work with Counsel on Indemnification Language – It’s not uncommon for contracts between business partners to include language shifting the cost of litigation and resulting damages from employer to vendor. But make sure you work with counsel when developing such language in these instances. Public policy doesn’t often allow you to transfer the cost of discriminatory behavior to someone else. You may want to place limits on any such indemnity as well, like certain dollar amounts or several months of accrued damages. And you’ll want to make sure that your agreements contain specific guidance on what type of vendor behavior falls under whatever agreement you reach.
Consider Legal Options – Should you be targeted in a discrimination action, consider whether you can take action beyond indemnification when it comes to your AI vendors. Breach of contract claims, deceptive business practice lawsuits, or other formal legal actions to draw the third party into the litigation could work to shield you from shouldering the full responsibility.
Implement Ongoing Monitoring – Regularly monitor the outcomes of your AI hiring tools. This includes tracking the demographic data of applicants and hires to identify any patterns that may suggest bias or have a potential disparate impact. This proactive approach can help you catch and address issues before they become legal problems.
Add the Human Touch – Consider where you will insert human decision-making at critical spots along your hiring process to prevent AI bias, or the appearance of bias. While an automated process that simply screens check-the-box requirements such as necessary licenses, years of experience, educational degrees, and similar objective criteria is low risk, completely replacing human judgment when it comes to making subjective decisions stands at the peak of riskiness when it comes to the use of AI. And make sure you train your HR staff and managers on the proper use of AI when it comes to making hiring or employment-related decisions.
5 Tips for Vendors
While not a complete surprise given all the talk from regulators and others in government regarding concerns with bias in automated decision making tools, this lawsuit should grab the attention of any developer of AI-based hiring tools. When taken in conjunction with the recent ACLU action against Aon Consulting for its use of AI screening platforms, it seems the time for government expressing concerns has been replaced with action. While plaintiffs’ attorneys and government enforcement officials have typically focused on employers when it comes to alleged algorithmic bias, it was only a matter of time before they turned their attention to the developers of these products. Here are some practical steps AI vendors can take now to deal with the threat.
Commit to Trustworthy AI – Make sure the design and delivery of your AI solutions are both responsible and transparent. This includes reviewing marketing and product materials.
Review Your Work – Engage in a risk-based review process throughout your product’s lifecycle. This will help mitigate any unintended consequences.
Team With Your Lawyers – Work hand-in-hand with counsel to help ensure compliance with best practices and all relevant workplace laws – and not just law prohibiting intentional discrimination, but also those barring the unintentional “disparate impact” claims as we see in the Workday lawsuit.
Develop Bias Detection Mechanisms – Implement robust testing and validation processes to detect and eliminate bias in your AI systems. This includes using diverse training data and regularly updating your algorithms to address any identified biases.
Lean Into Outside Assistance – Meanwhile, collaborate with external auditors or third-party reviewers to ensure impartiality in your bias detection efforts.
原文来自：https://www.salary.com/newsletters/law-review/agency-law-and-the-workday-lawsuit/
HR如何可以成为组织中的影响者 How HR Can Become an Organizational Influencer文章《HR如何成为组织的影响者》强调了HR在推动组织变革中的关键作用，通过战略影响而非正式权力来驱动变革。HR专业人员可以通过利用他们对人力动态的深入理解、战略思维和沟通技巧，成为关键的影响者。文章列出了HR需要掌握的八项核心能力，包括战略影响力、讲故事的能力、公共演讲、协作影响力、外交、信息传递、冲突解决和执行力。
通过发展这些技能，HR可以有效地驾驭变革，激励行动，并将人员战略与业务目标对齐。
变革不仅是不可避免的，而且是推动个人和组织成长与创新的动力。在工作中，变革可以推动一个组织向前发展并提升其水平，也可以摧毁它（包括其中的员工）。组织如何应对变革？是通过纯粹的角色权威？还是通过高层领导的强制命令？亦或是通过那些没有“正式权威”的人以更微妙的方式来推动和引导变革的方向？
在大多数组织中，人力资源（HR）没有像其他部门那样拥有正式的权力或影响力。通常，HR人员不足，资源匮乏。即使在过去几年中人力资源职能快速发展，HR在工作中仍在努力建立其战略价值。对于HR来说，推动或引导变革的力量不是正式的权力或“蛮力”，而是战略影响力（strategic influence）。
本质上，战略影响力不是关于权威，而是关于灵感、创新以及对工作中人类元素的深刻理解。讽刺的是，一些拥有强大职位的领导者除了他们头衔赋予的权力外，没有任何影响力。相反，一些在工作中没有头衔的普通人，却是通过利用他们的影响力来推动和引导变革的真正变革者。
有时HR确实有正式的权力，但更多时候没有。这就是为什么它必须更多地依赖影响力而不是正式的权威。
组织中的影响者 组织中的影响者是变革的催化剂，是能够理解业务战略与人类动态之间联系的愿景者。不同于源自层级权力的传统影响力，组织中的影响者的影响力来自于他们连接、理解和激励人的能力。
组织中的影响者具有一些基本特质，包括：
战略思考：看到更大的图景，并将努力与整体组织目标对齐。
以同理心领导：理解并重视他人的观点和需求。
有效沟通：通过清晰和信念表达想法并激励行动。
适应力强：拥抱变革并帮助他人应对变革。
用数据决策：利用数据洞察来决策和制定策略。
与他人合作并建立伙伴关系：建立伙伴关系并在组织各个层面促进团队合作。
创新：不断寻找和实施创造性的解决方案。
有韧性：在面对挫折时保持专注和积极。
伦理和诚信：坚持诚信并促进信任和尊重的文化。
让HR成为组织影响者的8种方式 以下是HR可以用来成为组织影响者的八种方法：
1 - 战略影响力 战略影响力是关于利用HR在人员领导和业务管理方面的独特见解来推动业务策略，确保人员与业务目标对齐并推动其前进。这个概念体现了HR领导者不仅是参与者，而且是董事会中的关键策略家，倡导促进组织成长和员工满意度的政策和实践。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
制定并执行与组织领导力对齐的有影响力的HR策略。
通过战略性HR举措影响高层管理和决策。
在整个组织中建立战略伙伴关系以增强HR的影响力。
使用HR洞察分析和解决复杂的组织挑战。
指导和发展HR团队以增强战略思维能力。
2 - 讲故事 讲故事是HR专业人士的一个强大工具，使他们能够将组织的价值观、文化和目标联系起来形成引人入胜的叙述。这种方法不仅增强了沟通，还建立了情感连接，使HR举措更易于理解和影响深远。通过讲故事，HR可以有效地倡导变革，庆祝成功，并阐明业务决策中的人性化一面，将抽象概念转化为在整个组织中产生共鸣的有意义的故事。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
创作引人入胜的叙述以传达HR的愿景和价值观。
使用有说服力的讲故事技巧吸引多样化的受众。
利用讲故事推动组织变革。
根据不同的沟通媒介调整讲故事的风格。
使用叙事智能增强HR的说服力。
3 - 出色的公众演讲 出色的公众演讲使HR领导者能够以权威和激情进行沟通，影响并激励他人。出色的公众演讲不仅仅是大声说话或喋喋不休，而是关于自信、同理心和理解。这项技能对于倡导HR举措、分享洞察和引导塑造组织未来的讨论至关重要。精通的公众演讲使HR领导者成为能够吸引听众的强大演说者，无论是在小型团队会议还是大型企业聚会上，都能有效传达HR的战略价值。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
掌握适用于HR背景的公众演讲技巧。
通过有效的演讲技巧吸引和激励受众。
利用公众演讲作为HR倡导和影响的工具。
根据不同类型的受众和组织层级调整演讲内容。
制作能够引起利益相关者共鸣的引人入胜的演讲内容。
4 - 协作影响力 协作影响力侧重于HR建立和维护推动组织成功的战略业务伙伴关系的能力。它突显了HR在弥合部门间差距、促进跨职能团队合作以及将HR策略与更广泛的业务目标对齐方面的作用。通过协作，HR可以打破孤岛，促进团结，并确保人员策略是实现公司目标的重要组成部分。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
建立和维持支持HR目标的有影响力的业务伙伴关系。
促进HR与其他业务单位之间的合作。
利用人际交往技能增强HR的协作影响力。
协商并对齐HR策略与更广泛的业务目标。
培养支持和倡导HR举措的盟友网络。
5 - 外交技巧 HR的外交技巧是关于以策略性智慧和策略性技巧驾驭复杂的组织政治网络。它涉及以尊重不同观点的方式倡导HR政策和举措，同时推动进步性变革。HR外交官善于建立共识、管理冲突，并将HR定位为组织决策中的中立但有影响力的参与者，确保在业务策略中始终考虑人员因素。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
利用外交技巧驾驭和影响组织政治。
使用策略性沟通技巧倡导HR驱动的变革。
通过外交解决复杂的组织问题。
在不同利益相关者群体中建立共识。
在所有HR举措中以诚信和伦理领导。
6 - 信息掌控 HR的信息掌控是关于编写和传达清晰表述HR策略价值和影响的信息。它是将沟通调整到不同受众的能力，确保清晰、参与和支持HR举措。通过有效的信息传达，HR专业人士可以解密HR政策，倡导组织变革，并巩固HR在组织内作为关键沟通者的角色。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
制定清晰有影响力的HR举措沟通策略。
调整HR信息以引起不同组织受众的共鸣。
以易于理解的方式传达复杂的HR概念。
有效利用各种沟通渠道传递HR信息。
测量和分析HR沟通策略的影响。
7 - 冲突解决和达成共识 冲突解决和达成共识在维护和谐和高效的工作环境中至关重要。这个概念围绕HR调解争议、促进谈判和培养合作与相互尊重环境的能力。通过为HR专业人士配备解决冲突的技能，组织可以确保更顺畅的运营、增强的团队合作以及一个重视建设性对话而非对抗的文化。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
有效调解和解决工作场所冲突。
促进合作和建设性的谈判过程。
在冲突各方之间建立共识以实现组织和谐。
实施预防和管理冲突的主动策略。
培训和指导团队冲突解决和达成共识的技能。
8 - 领导风范 HR影响者的领导风范和领导力是关于体现那些在组织各个层面上赢得尊重和激发信心的品质。这包括培养一种真实、权威和平易近人的领导风格，使HR领导者能够有效地倡导战略举措并以身作则。凭借强大的领导风范，HR专业人士可以更有效地影响结果、推动战略决策，并倡导以人为本的业务方法。 这些是需要掌握的五项能力：
培养权威且真实的领导风格。
提升高层沟通技巧。
建立战略关系。
以自信和愿景领导。
通过变革性领导实践激励团队和个人。
英文原来来自：https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-hr-can-become-organizational-influencer-hacking-hr-0xnlc/
作者：Hacking HR
Change is not just inevitable, but the driving force behind personal and organizational growth and innovation.
At work, change can either propel an organization forward and lift it up, or break it (including its people).
How can organizations navigate change? Is it through pure role-based authority? Is it through the brute force of senior leadership mandates? Or is there a more subtle way in which people, without “formal authority”, may drive and even steer the direction of change?
In most organizations, Human Resources (HR) does not have the formal authority or power that some of its counterparts have. Generally, HR is understaffed and under-resourced. And, even with the rapid advancement of the people function in the past few years, HR is still on the road to building its strategic value at work.
For HR, it is not formal authority or “brute force” that drives or steers change, it is the power of strategic influence.
In essence, strategic influence is not about authority, but inspiration, innovation, and a deep understanding of the human element at work.
Ironically, some leaders with a powerful position have no influence other than that given to them by their titles. In contrast, some ordinary people at work, without a title, are real change makers with potent network effects at work given how they leverage their influence to drive and steer change.
Sometimes HR does have the formal authority, but often it does not. That’s why it has to rely more on the power of influence than on the power of formal authority.
Organizational Influencers
An organizational influencer is a catalyst for change, a visionary who understands the connection business strategy and human dynamics. Unlike traditional notions of influence that stem from hierarchical power, organizational influencers derive their impact from their ability to connect, understand, and inspire people.
An organizational influencer has some foundational attributes, including:
Thinking strategically: Sees the bigger picture and aligns efforts with overarching organizational goals.
Leading with empathy: Understands and values the perspectives and needs of others.
Communicating effectively: Articulates ideas and inspires action through clarity and conviction.
Adapting: Embraces change and helps others navigate through it.
Informing decisions with data: Leverages insights from data to inform decisions and strategies.
Collaborating with others and building partnerships: Builds partnerships and fosters teamwork across all levels of the organization.
Innovating: Constantly seeks and implements creative solutions to challenges.
Being resilient: Maintains focus and positivity in the face of setbacks.
Behaving ethically and with integrity: Upholds integrity and promotes a culture of trust and respect.
8 Ways for HR to Becomes an Organizational Influencer
These are nine ways HR can use to become an organizational influencer.
1 - Strategic Influence
Strategic influence is about leveraging HR's unique insights into people leadership and business management to drive business strategies, ensuring that people align with and propels business objectives forward. This concept embodies the idea that HR leaders are not just participants but key strategists in the boardroom, advocating for policies and practices that foster both organizational growth and employee satisfaction.
These are five competencies to master:
Develop and execute impactful HR strategies aligned with organizational leadership.
Influence top-level management and decision-making through strategic HR initiatives.
Foster strategic partnerships across the organization to enhance HR's influence.
Analyze and address complex organizational challenges using HR insights.
Mentor and develop HR teams to strengthen strategic thinking skills.
2 - Storytelling
Storytelling is a powerful tool for HR professionals, enabling them to connect the dots between organization's values, culture, and goals into compelling narratives. This approach not only enhances communication but also builds emotional connections, making HR initiatives more relatable and impactful. Through storytelling, HR can effectively champion change, celebrate successes, and articulate the human side of business decisions, transforming abstract concepts into meaningful stories that resonate across the organization.
These are five competencies to master:
Craft compelling narratives to communicate HR vision and values.
Engage diverse audiences with persuasive storytelling techniques.
Leverage storytelling to drive organizational change.
Adapt storytelling styles to fit various communication mediums.
Use narrative intelligence to enhance HR's persuasive power.
3 - Public Speaking Excellence
Public speaking excellence empowers HR leaders to communicate with authority and passion, influencing and inspiring others at work. People speaking excellence is not about being loud or never shutting up, but about confidence, empathy and understanding. This skill is crucial for advocating HR initiatives, sharing insights, and leading discussions that shape the organization's future. Masterful public speaking turns HR leaders into powerful orators who can captivate their listeners, whether in small team meetings or large corporate gatherings, effectively conveying the strategic value of HR.
These are five competencies to master:
Master public speaking skills tailored for HR contexts.
Engage and motivate audiences through effective speech delivery techniques.
Utilize public speaking as a tool for HR advocacy and influence.
Adapt speeches to various audience types and organizational levels.
Develop compelling presentation content that resonates with stakeholders.
4 - Collaborative Influence
Collaborative influence focuses on HR’s capacity to forge and maintain strategic business partnerships that drive organizational success. It highlights HR’s role in bridging gaps between departments, facilitating cross-functional teams, and aligning HR strategies with broader business objectives. Through collaboration, HR can dismantle silos, encourage unity, and ensure that people strategies are integral to achieving corporate goals.
These are five competencies to master:
Build and sustain influential business partnerships that support HR goals.
Facilitate collaboration between HR and other business units.
Leverage interpersonal skills to enhance HR’s collaborative impact.
Negotiate and align HR strategies with broader business objectives.
Cultivate a network of allies to support and advocate for HR initiatives.
5 - Diplomacy
HR diplomacy is about navigating the complex web of organizational politics with tact and strategic acumen. It involves advocating for HR policies and initiatives in a way that respects differing viewpoints while pushing for progressive change. HR diplomats are adept at building consensus, managing conflicts, and positioning HR as a neutral yet influential player in organizational decisions, ensuring that the people aspect is always considered in business strategies.
These are five competencies to master:
Utilize diplomacy to navigate and influence organizational politics.
Advocate for HR-driven change using tactful and strategic communication.
Resolve complex organizational issues with diplomatic problem-solving.
Build consensus among diverse stakeholder groups.
Lead with integrity and ethical considerations in all HR initiatives.
6 - Message Mastery
Message mastery in HR is about crafting and delivering messages that clearly articulate the value and impact of HR strategies. It’s the ability to tailor communication to diverse audiences, ensuring clarity, engagement, and support for HR initiatives. Through effective messaging, HR professionals can demystify HR policies, champion organizational change, and solidify HR’s role as a key communicator within the organization.
These are five competencies to master:
Develop clear and impactful communication strategies for HR initiatives.
Tailor HR messaging to resonate with different organizational audiences.
Communicate complex HR concepts in an accessible manner.
Utilize various communication channels effectively for HR messaging.
Measure and analyze the impact of HR communication strategies.
7 - Conflict Resolution and Agreement Building
Conflict resolution and agreement building are fundamental in maintaining a harmonious and productive workplace. This concept revolves around HR's ability to mediate disputes, facilitate negotiations, and foster an environment of cooperation and mutual respect. By equipping HR professionals with the skills to navigate and resolve conflicts, organizations can ensure smoother operations, enhanced teamwork, and a culture that values constructive dialogue over confrontation.
These are five competencies to master:
Mediate and resolve workplace conflicts effectively.
Facilitate collaborative and constructive negotiation processes.
Build consensus among conflicting parties to achieve organizational harmony.
Implement proactive strategies to prevent and manage conflicts.
Train and guide teams in conflict resolution and agreement-building skills.
8 - Executive Presence
Executive presence and leadership for HR influencers are about embodying the qualities that command respect and inspire confidence at all levels of the organization. This includes cultivating a leadership style that is authentic, authoritative, and approachable, enabling HR leaders to effectively advocate for strategic initiatives and lead by example. With a strong executive presence, HR professionals can more effectively influence outcomes, drive strategic decisions, and champion a people-centric approach to business.
These are five competencies to master:
Cultivate an authoritative and authentic leadership style.
Enhance executive communication skills.
Build strategic relationships.
Lead with confidence and vision.
Inspire teams and individuals with transformative leadership practices.
观点
2024年06月20日
观点
利用组织网络分析（ONA） - 衡量员工绩效并优化战略作者: Maya Bodan, Don Miller, Sue Cantrell, Gary Parilis, 和 Carissa Kilgour
在快速变化的工作环境中，传统的办公室、工作时间和组织结构已逐渐失效，组织需要新的洞察力来理解、衡量和评估员工的绩效。特别是现在，了解人们如何互动、互动模式如何影响业务结果以及如何调整行为以改善这些结果变得更加重要。数据分析和人工智能 (AI) 的创新使这一切成为可能。
组织网络分析利用网络科学和特定指标来分析和可视化组织内部的沟通和信息流动。通过收集和分析调查和工作应用中的数据，组织可以利用数据、分析和 AI 的力量。组织网络分析揭示了传统组织结构图中没有的洞察力，例如人们如何协作、谁在决策中起到关键作用或者独立工作，以及关于信任和影响的情感。组织网络分析可以帮助领导者理解人际关系、可视化关系并找出成功的潜在障碍（图1）。
图1: 组织网络分析可以帮助发现组织内部的协作
衡量员工绩效
业务结果可以通过多种方式衡量。有时具体的定量指标是适用的；例如，一个专注于生产力的网络营销团队可能会强调点击次数、下载次数或发布的社交媒体帖子数量。改进指标，如“将网络流量增加X％”，使团队能够创新实现这一目标的方法。其他业务结果包括质量率和客户保留率的衡量。
然而，仅靠容易衡量的关键绩效指标并不能完整地呈现员工的生产力和业务影响。推动关系、发展和其他非量化人类结果的软性目标的结果对业务至关重要，尽管难以衡量。
雇主需要创造员工重视的工作场所。德勤研究显示，79%的领导者认识到他们有责任为员工创造价值，但只有27%的员工认为他们的雇主正在取得有意义的进展。在当前质疑面对面工作价值的环境中，量化人类结果带来了挑战。组织网络分析为领导者提供了分析洞察，优先考虑以人为本的指标，优化工作场所策略以提升整体员工体验。
理解个人员工绩效
组织网络分析 (ONA) 的洞察力在结合评估个人和团队绩效时尤其有用，这些绩效衡量会影响业务结果或生产力。
组织网络分析通过衡量与生产力相关的行为模式来评估生产力（需要对不同团队、职能和业务的生产力进行客观定义）。这些定义可以通过专家判断、焦点小组和访谈确定，或者通过数据分析进行量化。哪种模式是最优的取决于业务情况和需求。例如，有时，广泛的网络互动（与团队外部合作）是必要的，而在其他情况下，这可能会分散注意力——与直接同事合作是最好的（孤立的团队也可以是好的）。
非正式影响者通常不同于组织的正式领导者，他们可以提供关于如何独立于正式层级结构高效工作的宝贵视角。这些洞察力展示了员工人口在整个网络中的分布，以及职能、业务单元或地理位置等因素如何影响团队动态和生产力。在一个无边界的组织中，员工绩效超越了传统指标，突出了对非正式协作可见性的重要性。组织网络分析可以揭示隐藏的洞察力，展示信息在组织内部的真实流动方式，给领导者提供做出明智决策和优化员工绩效的洞察。
利用 ONA 优化工作场所策略
组织在平衡面对面和虚拟互动方面面临挑战。尽管许多组织鼓励员工返回办公室，期望面对面的互动能提升员工绩效和创新，但需要对人们如何实际工作的细致理解。高管希望办公室工作能激发创造力和联系，但往往面临昂贵的长期房地产承诺未得到充分利用的压力，这增加了定义办公室目的和价值的难度。通勤也会增加环境足迹，员工可能不愿失去灵活性。
通过组织网络分析，领导者可以回答一些关键问题：
有多少团队成员是共址的？
在什么情况下以及为什么需要共址？
什么工作可以或最好独立完成？
哪些工具和应用程序最能支持不同地点的工作？
一个重要因素是现场密度，它衡量一个人在办公室内近距离合作者网络的比例。更高的现场密度与更高的面对面工作的认可度相关。领导者可以利用组织网络分析的洞察来了解谁应该在一起工作以及何时在一起工作。理解这些非正式网络和影响范围可以为领导者解锁巨大的价值，以确定哪些团队应该共址以及共址时如何组织空间。通过虚拟方式沟通的独立工作者可能在办公室工作中看到的收益有限。有趣的是，新的数据显示“在松散联系网络中更可能产生创意”，这意味着与自己的直接网络外的合作可以促进创新。
结论
组织应负责任地使用数据、分析和 AI，以实时洞察员工在当今工作环境中的操作、协作和战略。这种改进的理解可以在多个组织层面支持价值创造和决策。组织网络分析提供了有关员工如何在混合工作模式和远程工作模式中跨职能和地理“边界”协作的绩效洞察，可以帮助领导层制定工作场所策略和政策。
作者
Maya Bodan
Don Miller
Sue Cantrell
Gary Parilis
Carissa Kilgour
贡献者
Yuki Iwase
Shruti Kalaiselvan
Ramyasri T M
Brennan Conway
Katherine Arriola
尾注
1 Deloitte, “Using network analysis to build an agile organization: Create organizational collaboration in a remote workplace,” 2020年10月27日。 2 Stephen Lancaster-Hall 等人, Humanizing productivity and performance: Productivity and performance in times of disruption, Deloitte, 2020; Deloitte, Beyond productivity: The journey to the quantified organization, 2023年5月。 3 Deloitte, Beyond Productivity: The journey to the quantified organization, 2023年5月。 4 Sue Cantrell 和 Corrie Commisso, “Outcomes over outputs: Why productivity is no longer the metric that matters most,” Deloitte Insights, 2023年7月19日。 5 Steve Hatfield, “Rethinking the ways we look at productivity in a Work from Anywhere world: How to evaluate remote worker productivity post-pandemic,” Deloitte’s Capital H blog, 2021年8月24日。 6 Worklytics, “12 metrics for more effective meetings,” 访问时间 2024年1月4日。 7 Deloitte Insights, New fundamentals for a boundaryless world: 2023 Global Human Capital Trends Report, 2023, 第80页。
来源：https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/blog/human-capital-blog/2024/harnessing-organization-network-analysis.html
观点
2024年06月19日
观点
美国公民自由联盟对Aon人工智能招聘工具发起投诉美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）于2024年6月6日向美国联邦贸易委员会提交了针对Aon的投诉，挑战其候选人评估工具的合法性和偏见问题。ACLU指控Aon的评估工具，如Adept-15人格测试和vidAssess-AI视频评估工具，在市场上虚假宣称“无偏见”并能“增进多样性”，实际上这些工具可能基于种族和残疾（如自闭症和心理健康障碍）歧视求职者。此外，ACLU还提到，Aon的gridChallenge认知能力评估也显示出种族表现上的差异。针对这些指控，Aon回应称其评估工具遵循行业最佳实践和EEOC、法律及专业指导原则。ACLU此举揭示了在职场包容性与合规性之间的紧张关系，呼吁更严格审查这些广泛使用的人力资源技术工具。
在人力资源技术迅速发展的世界中，人工智能（AI）扮演着关键角色，承诺将简化流程并增强招聘实践的效率。然而，AI整合到这些实践中经常引发关于公平性和歧视的重大争议。最近的一个例子涉及到全球专业服务公司Aon，该公司的AI驱动的招聘评估工具因美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的指控而受到审查。ACLU向美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）正式投诉Aon，突显了关于AI在招聘中应用的重要对话。
ACLU投诉的基础
ACLU指控Aon欺骗性地营销其招聘评估工具——特别是Adept-15性格评估、vidAssess-AI视频面试工具和gridChallenge认知能力测试——这些工具被宣称为无偏见并有助于提高工作场所的多样性。根据ACLU的说法，这些声明不仅具有误导性，而且可能违法，因为这些工具可能会基于种族和残疾（如自闭症、抑郁症和焦虑症）歧视求职者。这些工具使用算法和AI进行评估，根据候选人的积极性、情感意识和活力等特征进行评估，这些特征往往与工作表现无直接关联，且可能对某些残疾人群产生不成比例的影响。
Aon的辩护和行业实践
面对ACLU的指控，Aon为其产品辩护，声称这些工具是根据法律和专业指南（包括平等就业机会委员会EEOC设定的指南）设计的。Aon强调他们的工具是雇主用于做出更具包容性招聘决策的更广泛评估工具集的一部分。此外，Aon还指出其工具的效率和成本效益，认为这些工具比传统方法更少歧视性。
法律和道德含义
这场争议引发了关于使用AI进行就业的重要法律和道德问题。美国的法律，包括美国残疾人法案（ADA）和民权法案第七章，要求就业中的非歧视实践，涵盖从招聘到工作场所的所有方面。ACLU向FTC的投诉不仅提示可能违反这些法律，还将问题框定为不仅是就业歧视，还涉及消费者欺诈的问题。
更广泛的行业关注
ACLU对Aon的行动是更广泛运动的一部分，旨在审查用于招聘的AI工具。批评者认为，虽然这些技术提供了无偏见决策的潜力，但它们常常缺乏透明度，并可能无意中编码了其开发者或它们所训练的数据集的偏见。这一问题由于这些工具的专有性质而变得更加复杂，这阻碍了对它们的公平性和效率进行彻底的公众评估。
潜在后果和改革
ACLU对Aon的投诸可能对人力资源技术行业产生深远影响。如果FTC决定调查或制裁Aon，可能会导致对AI在招聘中的使用进行更严格的监管，可能为整个行业中类似工具的市场营销和实施设定先例。对依赖这些工具的公司而言，此案可能是重新评估其算法以确保符合反歧视法律的关键提示。
此外，此案凸显了技术专家、法律专家、政策制定者和民权倡导者之间需要进行持续对话的需求，以确保AI的进步能够增强而非破坏工作场所的平等。随着AI继续渗透到各种人力资源方面，制定维护反歧视和坚持道德原则的标准和最佳实践将至关重要。
结论
ACLU对Aon的投诉提醒我们在AI时代，创新、监管和权利之间的复杂相互作用。虽然AI为HR提供了变革的潜力，但它也需要谨慎处理以防止新形式的歧视。这个案例可能会成为AI在招聘伦理辩论中的一个里程碑，促使所有利益相关者考虑其技术选择的更广泛影响。随着法律程序的展开，人力资源技术行业将密切关注，意识到AI在招聘中的未来现在受到更审慎的公众和法律审视。
Unveiling Bias: The Controversy Over Aon's AI Hiring Tools and the ACLU's Challenge
In the rapidly evolving world of human resources technology, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a pivotal role, promising to streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of hiring practices. However, the integration of AI into these practices often sparks significant debate regarding fairness and discrimination. A recent example of this controversy involves Aon, a global professional services firm, whose AI-driven hiring assessment tools have come under scrutiny by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU's allegations against Aon, leading to a formal complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), underline a critical dialogue about the implications of AI in hiring.
The Basis of the ACLU’s Complaint
The ACLU has accused Aon of deceptively marketing its hiring assessment tools — specifically the Adept-15 personality assessment, the vidAssess-AI video interviewing tool, and the gridChallenge cognitive ability test — as bias-free and conducive to improving diversity in the workplace. According to the ACLU, these claims are not only misleading but also potentially unlawful, as the tools may perpetuate discrimination against job seekers based on race and disabilities such as autism, depression, and anxiety. These tools, which utilize algorithmic processes and AI, are said to evaluate candidates on traits like positivity, emotional awareness, and liveliness, which are often not directly relevant to job performance and may disproportionately affect individuals with certain disabilities.
Aon’s Defense and Industry Practices
In response to the ACLU's claims, Aon has defended its products by asserting that they are designed in compliance with legal and professional guidelines, including those set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Aon emphasizes that their tools are part of a broader array of assessments used by employers to make more inclusive hiring decisions. Moreover, Aon points to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their tools, arguing that they are less discriminatory than traditional methods.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The controversy raises significant legal and ethical questions about the use of AI in employment. U.S. laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, mandate non-discriminatory practices in employment, covering all aspects from hiring to workplace accommodation. The ACLU's complaint to the FTC, an agency tasked with protecting America’s consumers and competition, suggests potential violations of these laws, framing the issue not only as one of employment discrimination but also of consumer deception.
Broader Industry Concerns
The ACLU's actions against Aon are part of a larger movement to scrutinize AI tools used for hiring. Critics argue that while these technologies offer the potential for unbiased decision-making, they often lack transparency and can inadvertently encode the biases of their developers or the data sets they are trained on. This issue is compounded by the proprietary nature of these tools, which prevents a thorough public assessment of their fairness and effectiveness.
Potential Repercussions and Reforms
The outcome of the ACLU’s complaint could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry. A decision by the FTC to investigate or sanction Aon could lead to more stringent regulations governing the development and use of AI in hiring, potentially setting a precedent for how similar tools are marketed and implemented across the industry. For companies that rely on these tools, the case may serve as a critical prompt to reevaluate their algorithms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, this case highlights the need for ongoing dialogue between technologists, legal experts, policymakers, and civil rights advocates to ensure that advancements in AI serve to enhance, rather than undermine, workplace equality. As AI continues to permeate various aspects of human resources, the development of standards and best practices that safeguard against discrimination and uphold ethical principles will be crucial.
Conclusion
The ACLU's complaint against Aon is a reminder of the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and rights in the age of AI. While AI offers transformative potentials for HR, it also demands a cautious approach to prevent new forms of discrimination. This case may well become a landmark in the ongoing debate over AI ethics in hiring, urging all stakeholders to consider the broader implications of their technological choices. As the legal proceedings unfold, the HR technology industry will be watching closely, aware that the future of AI in hiring is now under a more discerning public and legal microscope.
观点
2024年06月06日
观点
美国劳工部发布职场人工智能使用原则，保护员工权益（附录原文）
今天5月16日，美国劳工部发布了一套针对人工智能（AI）在职场使用的原则，旨在为雇主提供指导，确保人工智能技术的开发和使用以员工为核心，提升所有员工的工作质量和生活质量。代理劳工部长朱莉·苏在声明中指出：“员工必须是我们国家AI技术发展和使用方法的核心。这些原则反映了拜登-哈里斯政府的信念，人工智能不仅要遵守现有法律，还要提升所有员工的工作和生活质量。”
根据劳工部发布的内容，这些AI原则包括：
以员工赋权为中心：员工及其代表，特别是来自弱势群体的代表，应被告知并有真正的发言权参与AI系统的设计、开发、测试、培训、使用和监督。这确保了AI技术在整个生命周期中考虑到员工的需求和反馈。
道德开发AI：AI系统应以保护员工为目标设计、开发和培训。这意味着在开发AI时，需要优先考虑员工的安全、健康和福祉，防止技术对员工造成不利影响。
建立AI治理和人工监督：组织应有明确的治理体系、程序、人工监督和评估流程，确保AI系统在职场中的使用符合伦理规范，并有适当的监督机制来防止误用。
确保AI使用的透明度：雇主应对员工和求职者透明地展示其使用的AI系统。这包括向员工说明AI系统的功能、目的以及其在工作中的具体应用，增强员工的信任感。
保护劳动和就业权利：AI系统不应违反或破坏员工的组织权、健康和安全权、工资和工时权以及反歧视和反报复保护。这确保了员工在AI技术的应用下，其基本劳动权益不受侵害。
使用AI来支持员工：AI系统应协助、补充和支持员工，并改善工作质量。这意味着AI应被用来提升员工的工作效率和舒适度，而不是取代员工或增加其工作负担。
支持受AI影响的员工：雇主应在与AI相关的工作转换期间支持或提升员工的技能。这包括提供培训和职业发展机会，帮助员工适应新的工作环境和技术要求。
确保负责任地使用员工数据：AI系统收集、使用或创建的员工数据应限于合法商业目的，并被负责地保护和处理。这确保了员工数据的隐私和安全，防止数据滥用。
这些原则是根据拜登总统发布的《安全、可靠和可信赖的人工智能开发和使用行政命令》制定的，旨在为开发者和雇主提供路线图，确保员工在AI技术带来的新机遇中受益，同时避免潜在的危害。
拜登政府强调，这些原则不仅适用于特定行业，而是应在各个领域广泛应用。原则不是详尽的列表，而是一个指导框架，供企业根据自身情况进行定制，并在员工参与下实施最佳实践。通过这种方式，拜登政府希望能在确保AI技术推动创新和机会的同时，保护员工的权益，避免技术可能带来的负面影响。
这套原则发布后，您认为它会对贵公司的AI技术使用和员工权益保护产生怎样的影响？
英文如下：
Department of Labor's Artificial Intelligence and Worker Well-being: Principles for Developers and Employers
Since taking office, President Biden, Vice President Harris, and the entire Biden-Harris Administration have moved with urgency to harness AI's potential to spur innovation, advance opportunity, and transform the nature of many jobs and industries, while also protecting workers from the risk that they might not share in these gains. As part of this commitment, the AI Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to create Principles for Developers and Employers when using AI in the workplace. These Principles will create a roadmap for developers and employers on how to harness AI technologies for their businesses while ensuring workers benefit from new opportunities created by AI and are protected from its potential harms.
The precise scope and nature of how AI will change the workplace remains uncertain. AI can positively augment work by replacing and automating repetitive tasks or assisting with routine decisions, which may reduce the burden on workers and allow them to better perform other responsibilities. Consequently, the introduction of AI-augmented work will create demand for workers to gain new skills and training to learn how to use AI in their day-to-day work. AI will also continue creating new jobs, including those focused on the development, deployment, and human oversight of AI. But AI-augmented work also poses risks if workers no longer have autonomy and direction over their work or their job quality declines. The risks of AI for workers are greater if it undermines workers' rights, embeds bias and discrimination in decision-making processes, or makes consequential workplace decisions without transparency, human oversight and review. There are also risks that workers will be displaced entirely from their jobs by AI.
In recent years, unions and employers have come together to collectively bargain new agreements setting sensible, worker-protective guardrails around the use of AI and automated systems in the workplace. In order to provide AI developers and employers across the country with a shared set of guidelines, the Department of Labor developed "Artificial Intelligence and Worker Well-being: Principles for Developers and Employers" as directed by President Biden's Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, with input from workers, unions, researchers, academics, employers, and developers, among others, and through public listening sessions.
APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES
The following Principles apply to the development and deployment of AI systems in the workplace, and should be considered during the whole lifecycle of AI – from design to development, testing, training, deployment and use, oversight, and auditing. The Principles are applicable to all sectors and intended to be mutually reinforcing, though not all Principles will apply to the same extent in every industry or workplace. The Principles are not intended to be an exhaustive list but instead a guiding framework for businesses. AI developers and employers should review and customize the best practices based on their own context and with input from workers.
The Department's AI Principles for Developers and Employers include:
[North Star] Centering Worker Empowerment: Workers and their representatives, especially those from underserved communities, should be informed of and have genuine input in the design, development, testing, training, use, and oversight of AI systems for use in the workplace.
Ethically Developing AI: AI systems should be designed, developed, and trained in a way that protects workers.
Establishing AI Governance and Human Oversight: Organizations should have clear governance systems, procedures, human oversight, and evaluation processes for AI systems for use in the workplace.
Ensuring Transparency in AI Use: Employers should be transparent with workers and job seekers about the AI systems that are being used in the workplace.
Protecting Labor and Employment Rights: AI systems should not violate or undermine workers' right to organize, health and safety rights, wage and hour rights, and anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections.
Using AI to Enable Workers: AI systems should assist, complement, and enable workers, and improve job quality.
Supporting Workers Impacted by AI: Employers should support or upskill workers during job transitions related to AI.
Ensuring Responsible Use of Worker Data: Workers' data collected, used, or created by AI systems should be limited in scope and location, used only to support legitimate business aims, and protected and handled responsibly.
观点
2024年05月16日
观点
2024年组织中人力资源部门的21个关键角色-来自AIHR
组织中人力资源部门的21个关键角色，分为“关键角色”、“合规角色”和“新兴角色”三个部分，如下所示：
关键角色
吸引候选人：开发和执行策略以吸引合适的候选人。
选择候选人：从众多申请者中挑选出最适合的候选人。
内部和外部招聘：内部晋升和外部招聘的管理。
绩效评估：对员工的工作表现进行评估。
薪酬：设计和实施薪酬策略。
员工福利管理：设计和管理员工福利计划。
学习与发展：确保员工技能与组织需求保持一致。
合规角色
晋升：晋升机制的设计与实施。
问题解决小组：创建和管理解决问题的小组。
全面质量管理（TQM）：实施全面质量管理以提高服务或产品质量。
信息共享：确保重要信息能够及时传达给所有员工。
组织发展：通过战略性的人力资源管理提升组织效能。
调查管理：管理各种员工调查，收集反馈以改进工作环境。
合规管理：确保公司遵守所有相关法律和规章制度。
商业合作伙伴：HR作为管理层的战略合作伙伴，提供人力资源解决方案。
新兴角色
数据与分析管理：使用数据分析来支持决策过程。
人力资源技术管理：管理和优化HR相关的技术和系统。
变更管理：领导和管理组织变更。
员工体验：设计和改进员工的整体工作体验。
多元化、公平、包容和归属感（DEIB）：推广和实施多元化和包容性策略。
公关：管理公司的公共形象和应对公关危机。
原文来自：https://www.aihr.com/blog/human-resources-roles/
Attracting candidates, Selecting candidates, Hiring from within and from outside, Performance appraisals, Compensation, Employee benefit management, Learning & development, Promotions, Problem-solving groups, Total quality management (TQM), Information sharing, Organizational development, Survey management, Compliance management, Business partnering, Data & analytics management, HR technology management, Change management, Employee experience, DEIB, PR
吸引候选人、选择候选人、内部和外部招聘、绩效评估、薪酬、员工福利管理、学习与发展、晋升、问题解决小组、全面质量管理 (TQM)、信息共享、组织发展、调查管理、合规管理、业务合作、数据与分析管理、人力资源技术管理、变革管理、员工体验、DEIB、公共关系
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
扫一扫
添加客服
