I made up my mind, hoisted up my big girl panties and moved from the world of blog-partner sites to an actual honest-to-god self hosted site.

Thanks to the encouragement of Laurie Ruettimann and the web genius talent of Lance Haun I’m getting set to put this site to rest as I’ve moved on over to HRSchoolhouse.com.  And really, the two of them (along with an able assist from Lizzie Smithson) did all the heavy lifting while I merely sat back and enjoyed a refreshing pina colada.

I started this blog in September 2010 and a year and a half-later am moving into a new abode.  I would say it’s about time.

If you subscribe to my RSS feed never fear – I’ll continue to pop up in your reader-of-choice.  If, however, you are one of my subscribers – you will want to re-subscribe to the HR Schoolhouse.

Come along for the journey.  It’s rapture time.

**********

I was witness to an interesting phenomenon not too long ago – a round of “HR Solar System.” Also known as “I’m in HR and I think the planets revolve around me.”

At a recent workshop, the speaker posed the following question: “if an employee is getting off track, whose job is it to get them back on board?”

So while I ticked through some answers in my mind – “the employee, the manager” – I really wasn’t surprised to hear an answer bubbling up from throughout the audience – “it’s HR’s job.”

Seriously HR? Really?

**********************

One thing that always makes me wince is when HR colleagues make statements along the line of “I have to meet with Sally Sue Employee to issue her write-up/written warning/PIP.” And Sally Sue works in Accounting. Or Marketing. In other words, Sally Sue is NOT having this performance discussion with her manager – she is having it with HR.

Stop it HR.

HR’s role is not to insert itself into every single employee interaction. Our role is to assist the managers by providing them with the coaching, support and guidance so that THEY can have performance discussions with employees who report to them.

Our role is to assist in supporting a culture where employees are treated with dignity and in which there is adherence to laws, regulations and policies. Our role is to work to ensure that our organizations provide the foundational structure and the environment in which the employees can succeed. And ultimately our role is to do all these things in order to impact our organization’s performance and success.

*************

The quickness of these workshop attendees to respond “that’s HR’s role to get an employee back on track” points to a continuing desire to be acknowledged and validated. I saw it happen live. I hear stories about it on a regular basis. Jason Lauritsen wrote a great post about this syndrome over at Practicing HR after the conclusion of the HR Reinvention Experiment in Omaha. He made some great points and readers chimed in with some super comments. Go check it out and then let me know —

—- does HR still view itself as the center of the universe? Do we suffer from Solar System Syndrome?

I was never the biggest fan.

Now I do to admit to whipping up a batch or two of Jell-O® in my life – sans floating morsels of vegetables of course. The recipe directions on the box are fairly idiot-proof and I’ve managed to get it right a few times over the years; not too runny, not too chewy – just right. I have, however, learned one lesson over the years – if attempting to add fruit (think strawberries) it’s crucial to make sure the fruit is well-dried before mixing it in; too much moisture will throw off that delicate balance of 1 cup hot water/1 cup cold water and leave one with a bowl of liquid that refuses to ‘set.’

**********

Nailing Jell-O® to a tree has come to be a metaphor for attempting an impossible task.

• “Trying to get your mother to understand how to use Skype?” “Like nailing Jell-O® to a tree.”
• “Convincing the-powers-that-be that tele-work may be a viable option for the workforce?” “Like nailing Jello-O® to a tree.”
• “Increasing the robust use of social channels and networks among HR practitioners?” “Like nailing Jello-O® to a tree.”

But as with many things in life, sometimes we give up before exploring other options.  Does the difficulty in accomplishing a particular task arise due to our own inadequate specifications/details?  Do we have an inherent problem when working to move-the-needle forward because we’re using imprecise language? Have we identified, and attempted to nail that slippery Jell-O®, in the right sweet spot?

So how DO we nail that elusive gelatinous mess to the tree?  If we take a spoonful right from the bowl and hoist the hammer we’re bound to fail.  But perhaps we:

• Put the Jell-O® in a Ziploc® baggie and then nail the baggie to the tree
• Whip up some Jell-O® Jigglers which are a bit sturdier and may adhere better
• Chop down the tree so it’s laying on its side before we commence the hammering
• Cook up a batch of Jell-O® shots, drink them down, and stop worrying about nailing anything to that damn piece of timber

**********

There’s not much that’s impossible.  Sometimes we just need to approach it in a new way.

And one interesting side note – in the UK and some other parts of the world, people call this stuff “jelly.”  Jelly with carrots and cabbage sounds just as loathsome.

********** 

The Dress Code policy. There are very few managers or HR professionals who haven’t participated in a dress code conversation.

Sadly, in many organizations, when faced with conundrums such as: “How do I tell Sally she needs to wear a bra?” (answer: “Hey Sally, you need to wear a bra.”) or “What are we going to do so that Bob irons his shirts? (answer: “Hey Bob, iron your shirts.”), the easy lazy answer has always been “Let’s write a dress code policy!”

Many years ago, when I was fresh-faced and eager in my new HR career, the organization I worked for felt the need to move from a common-sense (for the most part) one page Dress Code Policy to a FIVE PAGE policy that spelled out everything from the length of one’s skirt to the banning of pants/skirts that had pockets on the back. The enforcement of this policy would have necessitated, more than likely, the hiring of Sister Mary Agnes to join our staff and roam about measuring skirt lengths with her ruler. As it was, we were already a tad foolish, differentiating the proper attire based on what floor of the building you worked on. If you were a female, and your office was on the 2^nd floor, you were forbidden from wearing pants. Why? That was the Executive Floor (all-male C-Suite at the time) and, apparently, it had been determined that the gals needed to remember their place in the hierarchy.

Now this was a financial institution with drive-through banking stations in the Midwest and in the winter it was not uncommon to hit (and sustain) temperatures well below zero. And as you may recall from the last time you went to a drive-through banking facility the tellers were f-a-r a-w-a-y from you and you probably could have cared less about what they were wearing. Nevertheless, back in the day, the company I worked for decided that these employees were dressing inappropriately when they wore cardigan sweaters over a nice shirt or blouse. Never mind the fact that they wore the cardigan sweaters because working in those drive-thru facilities was like coming down the wind tunnel at Lambeau Field in the middle of January.

Sorry Joanie; time to ditch the sweater. Common sense is no match for our dress code policy.

**********

The other day while Googling some random HR stuff, I came across the slide deck for a New Employee Orientation circa 2007.

There were a number of slides devoted to what to wear/what not to wear. (Spaghetti strap tops and athletic shoes were out; pressed khakis and blazers were in). I guess it was particularly helpful for this organization to point out that while skirts and dresses were always appropriate for women – “Female executives and their assistants may choose to wear suits.” I wonder what happened when Grace, the lowly mid-level Purchasing Manager decided to wear a suit? Scandalous!

That, of course, was on the Do/Don’t slide for women. And naturally there was a Do/Don’t slide for men. The headers of these two slides:

“Men Should Look Nice” and “Women Should Look Pretty.”

I am not kidding.

**********

I think about a new employee sitting in a conference room in 2007 (that’s only 5 years ago!) with other newbies. She was excited to start her new job, perhaps even making a bit more money than in her last gig. She had been through numerous interviews, got a good vibe from her soon-to-be-boss and felt she made the right decision for her career when she accepted the job offer.

And then she learned what this company considers important for the success of its female employees when she’s told She Should Look Pretty.

I wonder how long I would have lasted?

And if you, like me, work in HR or Recruiting and can dig that vibe – you need to embrace it.   My friend Geoff Webb, living large up there in Toronto, has launched two phenomenal training programs – the BlueBelt in Internet Recruitment and the Social Media Bootcamp for HR.   If you attend either one you receive an honest-to-baby-jesus actual certification which is recognized in Europe and North America.

But the thing is – what Geoff and his team will teach you to do is not just radical – it’s necessary!  When pursuing your Blue Belt, you’ll find out how to source candidates (or find job leads) and effectively use social networks when searching for candidates.  And if you want to send your HR team to Boot Camp, they’ll leave camp with a solid understanding of how HR practitioners can use channels such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Video, Blogging and Google Plus – for knowledge, understanding and engagement.

Check it out because these are awesome – details of the programs can be found at Radical Events.  Geoff can be reached via email or on the Twitterz

p.s.  once upon a time in the land known as Orlando, Florida (HR Florida 2010 SHRM Conference), Geoff was one of the people who helped me birth-this-blog.    I may have bought him a drink for his efforts; I don’t remember.  I was being way too rad.

*******

thumbs up courtesy of this guy

There’s an intriguing aspect however to this year’s tournament.  The Augusta National Golf Club, a private club mind you, is exclusive and traditional.  They are famously known for having no women among their 300 or so members and the issue rises to the forefront of the news practically every year around tournament time.

But one tradition may cause a bit of heartburn this year for the Club.  Historically, the CEOs of the major sponsors (IBM, AT&T and ExxonMobil) have been granted membership – a bunch of middle-aged white guys joining up with 300 or so other middle-aged white guys to enjoy the privilege of paying exorbitant annual dues and swill $18 cocktails on the 19^th hole.

But…IBM has a new CEO.  Earlier this year (New Year’s Day 2012), Virginia “Ginni” Rometty, a woman, was named as IBM CEO.  As of yet, no invitation for membership has been offered to Ms. Rometty.  So the debate rages on (both President Obama and Mitt Romney were asked this week to weigh in on the matter) and apparently Ginni Rometty is planning to attend the tournament this week but has yet to offer any statement on behalf of IBM.

Now Augusta National is a private club and they can do what they want.  But I, for one, am interested to see how this plays out. Will they extend a membership invitation to her, let the male/female dividing wall come tumbling down, and send a message that times have changed?  Or, by refusing to invite her to join, will they send a very clear message of a different sort?

Fore!

But just the other day I had a conversation with a friend named Jeff who told me he’s in a work environment where most of his team members live by the rule of let’s-do- just-enough-to-get-by.

“You don’t have to give that much effort” a co-worker told him. “You’re making the rest of us look bad.”

“Take your time getting it done; we need to fill up the day so they don’t cut our positions” said another cubicle-mate.

“You’re working too hard” chimed in a third.

**********

This is a fairly small work group and the supervisor is right in the trenches so there’s no possible way (absent total obliviousness) that he’s not aware of these conversations … or these work habits.  The necessary work is getting done – no question there – but it’s apparently minimal output. 

And poor Jeff feels caught in the middle.  He’s got the desire and the dedication to do his best each day.  He heads into the office loaded with vim and vigor and gusto, ready to learn and contribute even more.  But he’s getting the message that it’s perfectly acceptable, and somewhat preferable, to do just-enough-to-get-by.  And it frustrates him…to the point where he’s starting the search for another job.

Just a tad freakin’ insane that a department and an organization could potentially lose people BECAUSE they want to work…and are being held back from doing their best.  Am I right?

*********

I dunno.  Maybe even after all these years in the People Business I’m still a bit of a Pollyanna – always able to find something to be “glad” about no matter the circumstances.  So in this case I guess I can be glad that hard-working Jeff is putting himself out on the market – and may be available to fill a position at my company.

I attended a session yesterday called “Should Organizations Accommodate Employees or Expect Them to Adapt to Corporate Culture?” presented by Bill Doucette, a VP of HR from Illinois.  He led us through the evolution, and solidification, of culture at his organization over the last dozen years (4 CEOs!). 

During his presentation he spoke about some of the issues his organization tackled such as what are the assumptions that both organizations and employers have about organizational culture (both in general and specifically within their company) and how to connect that employer view and that employee view.  He posed the question – how does one find the right balance between creativity and conformity?

In our speaker’s experience, his organization defined the culture, the values, norms and behaviors that were important and moved down the path to embed that culture.  They were pretty clear in their belief that individuals needed to “actively and seriously look at how they can change to better support the organization’s culture.”  And he made the point that employees need to ‘buy into’ culture at the individual level in order to move it to their work group, team, department and the macro-company level.

OK.  Agreed – it all begins with me. But…….

People are amazing because they’re unique.   They have their talents and their idiosyncrasies; their foibles and their seemingly-super-human powers.   Having the ability to come into contact with and work with a vast array of employees is what excites us and keeps so many of us working in Human Resources. 

When we bring any one of these marvelously unique individuals into our organization, we’re introducing a new fish into our aquarium.  That fish, placed in our fairly tranquil environment, slightly disrupts the water. There’s an initial splash when the fish enters the water.  As he sinks down to the bottom there’s further disturbance, causing the other fish to skitter about frantically, their googly-little eyes darting around until, calmness restored, they settle back into languid leisurely swimming patterns. But that new fish, merely by its entry, changed the environment forever – perhaps imperceptibly, but changed it nonetheless. 

So then imagine what happens when we introduce another fish. And then one more.  Or perhaps we take a plastic baggie full of newbie-fishies and drop in the whole lot at once. 

Disruption. 

***********

When I was in 3^rd grade I had a black fish with big bug-eyes named Hog who lived in a fishbowl on my bedroom dresser.  I was certain he was lonely all by himself and convinced my mother that he absolutely needed a friend and so could we please, please, please go and get him a companion.  Off we went to the pet store where I picked up a lovely orange-hued goldfish and the next day I went off to school, content in the knowledge that Hog had someone to keep him company.

I came home from school that afternoon to an absolutely horrifying scene of fish carnage.

Goldie (who had yet to have an actual name bestowed upon him) was dead – laying on the dresser outside the bowl.  Hog, seemingly oblivious to the horrific crime scene mere inches from his abode, was happily swimming laps in the fishbowl.

Perhaps Goldie was a poor fit to the environment.  It may have been so awful that he choose to sacrifice himself to the fish gods rather than spend another moment in there.  It’s possible he tried to make some changes but Hog let him know he needed to conform or get out so he chose to make that fateful leap to freedom.  He may have even been given a nudge from Hog that launched him up-and-out…

**********

When we introduce someone new into a work group, a department or an organization are they forced to choose between creativity and conformity?   And how do we know at what point along that creativity/conformity spectrum we are positioned? 

There are certainly areas to which we must expect employees to conform – non-negotiables like working with integrity or embracing a culture of safety.  But how are we reacting to those new entrants into our environment who are ‘creative’ – who are, perhaps, a bit disruptive?  What happens when the sheer mass of the ‘newbies’ exceeds and overwhelms those who have been in place for a while?  Aren’t these newbies, by their mere presence, now impacting and changing that living organism known as our culture?

Do we welcome these people in?  Or do we push them out?

Gordon works out of his car and only visits his office once a week.  His trunk is filled with what he calls his ‘portable filing cabinets’ and he regularly battles with the bits and pieces of paper, order pads, legal pads and catalogs.  His is an industry that still uses what some might consider old-fashioned technology methods, but that sure hasn’t impacted the company’s revenue growth.

But naturally, information is vital to keep the wheels of commerce turning, and for Gordon, in his sales role, information can be power.  His customers anticipate that he will know what’s going on in his (and their) industry and that he’ll be tuned in when items hit the news that could/may/possibly affect their day-to-day.  So he tries to keep up – he subscribes to industry RSS feeds, tackles his email inbox before his 6 AM breakfast and after his 7 PM dinner, and reads industry periodicals each night before he crawls into bed, exhausted.   He relies on his corporate office staff to provide him with relevant information  – updates on new products, company-related items that hit the newspapers, and information on big wins.  After all, items that may be of interest to his customers, are certainly of interest to Gordon.

But one day, Gordon shows up for a scheduled visit with Blake, a Plant General Manager with one of his most loyal customers.  Gordon walks in to Blake’s office to find him reading that morning’s paper, a luxury Gordon seldom has time for.  Blake raises his eyebrows and feigns surprise “Well well Gord-o; I didn’t expect to see you here today.  Not with this story on page 1, above the fold, announcing a governmental inquiry into your Qualcot product line.  Compete with quotes from your senior management team.”

Gordon wants to collapse into the floor.

************

So where does the blame lie?  Does it lie with the overextended road warrior with limited access to technology who still tries to stay up with overflow of information?  Is it his responsibility to extend his day even further and get up at 4:30 AM rather than 5 AM in order to read all the local periodicals in addition to checking his email and other sources?

Does the blame lie with Gordon’s manager for not sharing this news with her team?  Do we even know if Gordon’s manager is herself aware of this news story?  What about the senior leadership team?  The corporate communications group? 

Who knew what – and when?  How was it decided when to share?

And was it the plan, all along, that Gordon and his 84-fellow-road-warriors would learn when they read the news in the morning paper?  Or was it possible that no one even thought of Gordon?

**********

Sometimes, especially in large multi-layered organizations, systemic ways of disseminating information have developed over time.  A small group of people develop, write, and refine the message.  The message is reviewed, vetted, blessed and eventually shared.   This can take hours, days or even weeks.  And it’s important, obviously, to be professional and on point in corporate communications. But why do some organizations insist on controlling themessage to their internal audience to such a degree?   They keep a lid on it to the detriment of their employees – in essence sending them into the big old world without the information they need to do their job.

They forget about Gordon.

I spent some time thumbing through the book and reading the employer profiles with accompanying stories about what these organizations have done to implement some type of flexibility.  It’s a topic, interestingly enough, around which I’ve had some recent conversations so I dug a little deeper.  I came across some good resources on the When Work Works website, including a number of toolkits and white papers for both employees and companies. 

The Employee Self-Assessment Checklist can be a great starting point for some of these discussions in any given organization.  The checklist provides an opportunity for an employee to evaluate the whether they and their job are compatible with any one of a number of flexible work options by evaluating the ‘fit’ in four categories:

• Job Requirements
• Work Style and Personal Characteristics
• Personal Expectations and Tradeoffs, and
• Business Impact on Others

There are also a number of resources for employers including a “Guide to Flexibility” and “Tips for Creating a Flexible Work Environment.”

This discussion that’s been going on for some time and the conversation continues.  The initial question to be answered, however, is how do YOU define flexibility?  As an employer…and as an employee?