The HR Capitalist

Giving Feedback to Your Boss When You're In HR...

2009-11-20T09:45:00-06:00

You're in HR - a partner to whomever you serve... Guess what? That means you're supposed to tell people when they're messing up. For a lot of us, that's easy when it's employees and even the managers we serve in other departments. It gets trickier when we have to tell our boss that there's something rotten in Denmark related to... well, them.

If you've been faced with giving your boss needed feedback as a HR pro, it comes in two different flavors -your boss is either a HR professional or a line manager to whom you report directly. I've always found it easier to give straight feedback to a line manager I reported to. After all, they aren't in HR, so the people/culture related stuff you usually coach them on can easily be rationalized as, "well, you know, that's why I've got you".

It's harder for the HR boss to hear what you have to say. You know why - they're in HR, so they should likely be aware of what you are reminding them of. Except they aren't. Is anyone else uncomfortable?

But like the Discovery Channel points out nightly, humans HR people ain't nothin' but mammals. With that in mind, here's my list of things to keep in mind once you decide to give the boss an "opportunity for improvement":

1. You've Got to Give to Get - Mix positive reinforcement often - it's a good practice and money in the bank when you need to make an "opportunity for improvement" withdrawal. If they've heard good stuff from you periodically, you'll automatically have credibility with the challenges you point out.

2. Timing is Everything - Financials just came out and the division missed revenue by 20%, but you've got "talk to boss" in your day planner. Don't be a sucker - kick your Franklin Covey binder across the room and live to fight another day.

3. Don't Roll Someone Else Under the Bus - Own your observation, don't say, "Johnny mentioned that you had an anger problem in the meeting". By putting your observations on someone else, the boss wants to go tackle Johnny, not listen to you about the issue. If you've done a good job with positive feedback and being there, your boss will listen to you when you need help from them - even regarding their own actions.

4. Have the Boss's Back Once in Awhile - Similar to the need for positive feedback, you've got to be there to take a bullet for the boss once in awhile, or at least identify a sniper before you go into a dicey meeting. If you've been known to act like a secret service agent when needed for the boss, they'll listen when you have something to say.

And the most important factor to consider when giving negative feedback to your boss:

5. You're Not Judging Them, You're Their Agent - No one likes to feel judged when getting negative feedback from a subordinate. Everyone likes to have an agent looking out for their corporate image. That's why you're going to lead with the following - "Susan, as you know, I'm out there making it happen, but at the same time, I'm looking out for you. That's why I have to make sure you have visibility to the fact that you shouldn't have fired that coordinator on the spot in front of 25 people".

Be the Gladys Kravitz of the office, and the boss will hate you. Be his/her personal agent in charge of their corporate image, and you've got a chance to be heard and maybe.. just maybe.. get improvement in the area you need.

Finally, always end with the following to your boss - "You wanna hug it out? Let's hug it out"....

You Want to Talk About Our Infighting and Politics? You're Fired... (A Cautionary Tale)

2009-11-18T09:06:27-06:00

You can't write them better than this. A disgruntled customer of American Airlines writes up a hard blog post on what's wrong with the AA website. Even goes so far as to draw up a new design for AA. Posts that on blog for the world to see. Interesting from a social media perspective, right? More from the guy in question at dustincurtis.com.

"A few months ago, I wrote an article expressing my displeasure with American Airlines‘ hideous online presence. I also spent some time mocking up a redesigned version of their website. To my surprise, a user experience designer at AA.com emailed me an amazing response describing some of the design problems faced in large corporations. You should read my original article here and the response from Mr. X here."

Go read Dustin's original post - it's a good read. Then, take a look at Mr. X. It's an actual employee who comes in to talk about the issues, but also to give Dustin some perspective on how difficult it is to turn a big ole' battleship like American Airlines from a design perspective, basically talking about all the layers, the silos, etc. - and how hard it is to get things that make sense done in that environment. Here's part of the reply from Mr X:

"I saw your blog post titled “Dear AmericanAirlines,” and I thought I’d drop a line. Sorry for the length of this email, but let me sum up the gist of what I’ve written below: You’re right. You’re so very right. And yet…

First, an introduction. I’m Mr X, and I work here at AA.com. I’ve been doing UX design and development for about 10 years with a variety of companies in a variety of industries, and I work with a team of other UX specialists on AA.com. I like to think I’m decent at what I do, and I know the others I work with here are all pretty good. The problem with the design of AA.com, however, lies less in our competency (or lack thereof, as you pointed out in your post) and more with the culture and processes employed here at American Airlines.

But—and I guess here’s the thing I most wanted to get across—simply doing a home page redesign is a piece of cake. You want a redesign? I’ve got six of them in my archives. It only takes a few hours to put together a really good-looking one, as you demonstrated in your post. But doing the design isn’t the hard part, and I think that’s what a lot of outsiders don’t really get, probably because many of them actually do belong to small, just-get-it-done organizations. But those of us who work in enterprise-level situations realize the momentum even a simple redesign must overcome, and not many, I’ll bet, are jumping on this same bandwagon. They know what it’s like.

OK, so it’s not all bad. The good news is that we have a lot of UX improvements coming down the line, most of which we’ll incorporate over the next 12 – 18 months as new projects go live. Some of our slated efforts include improved navigation; 16 column grid-based layouts; a lighter, more airy visual design; improved user interactions; and an increased transparency to fares and sales policies across the board. We’ll work it all in organically, as the site evolves to include new features. But it won’t be done via an explicit, massive redesign. Can’t be.

So, since it won’t all get done overnight, don’t give us a bad grade if you don’t see it happening fast enough for your taste. Even a large organization can effect change; it just takes a different approach than the methods found in smaller shops. But it’ll happen because it has to, and we know that. And we’ll keep on keepin’ on, even if most of us really and truly would prefer to throw it all away and start over."

Read the full note from Mr X. at DustinCurtis.com. Guess what happened to Mr. X? American Airlines did a text search off the Microsoft Outlook Exchange Server to identify Mr. X and promptly fired him in the same day.

So the question regarding social media and transparency is this - can you handle the Mr X's of the world engaging dissatisfied customers on behalf of your company? I look at the note provided by Mr. X and think, wow, that's so much more effective in terms of engaging Dustin Curtis than the PR shop would have been. My first reaction would be that he needs his own blog on behalf of American Airlines.

But I'm an outlier with social media usage. What about you? Good firing, bad firing, or somewhere in between?

Its' a brave new world out there for companies trying to control the message rather than honestly engaging customers.

Hat tip to Capitalist reader JC...

Belichick on Culture: Sometimes You've Got To Say "What The..."

2009-11-17T07:56:00-06:00

You've been there before. People around you are playing the odds. They're shifting lanes on the freeway, following up on emails after a textbook two days silence and electing not to challenge incoherent thoughts in meetings for political reasons.

Everyone's doing it kid. Work the odds. Survive and advance. Play it by the book.

Of course, if everyone is playing the odds, the collective experience of the pack is, well... AVERAGE.

Sometimes, if you want to build or maintain something of significance, you have to say "what the <...>" and do something to challenge the status quo. To let the team around you know that your tribe is different. Like Bret Michaels of Poison once crooned, you might have to give them something to believe in.

Did I just go all Poison on you? Freakin' A. So did Bill Belichick of the NFL's New England Patriots when he made, what many consider to be, the worst call of the decade. More from the Boston Globe:

"For those who were looking for a candid explanation or an emotional mea culpafrom Bill Belichick the morning after his already-infamous unconventional decision late in the game contributed to the Patriots' shocking 35-34 loss to the Colts . . . well, you haven't been paying attention to the coach all these years.

Last night Belichick surprised -- OK, shocked -- Patriots fans with his decision to go for it on fourth and 2 from the Colts 28-yard line with 2 minutes and 8 seconds remaining and a 34-28 lead, a decision that backfired when the Patriots failed to convert and the Colts quickly responded with the winning mini-drive, culminating with a touchdown catch by Reggie Wayne and the extra point with 13 seconds remaining."

That call has been panned as one of the worst ever in the media blitz that followed. I didn't get it either. Then I saw the quotes from the Patriot's locker room:

Carrying the most weight is Tom Brady himself, who unequivocally stated after the game, "I love the call."

“I love the fact that we’re out there with a chance to win. The coach has confidence that we can make it. I had confidence. We all did.’’

Ah ha... right. "Our leader believes". "Our leader is different". "We play to win". And so goes the flip side of any unconventional, play to win decision you make in your business, especially when your survival is not in doubt. Being willing to do something unconventional, against the book, can be a stroke of genius that can galvanize your team.

What are the examples in the business world? What would send a message that it's NOT business as usual with you as the leader?

Would firing non-profitable customers send a message? What about spending resources to go after customers the previous management team never dreamed could be landed? Fill in the blank. What blows up the status quo and sends a message for a team that needs leadership? Can you take the chances without putting the survival of your company at risk?

Then you might want to channel Bill Belichick and Bret Michaels - and give 'em something to believe in. If it goes well, you're a hero. If it blows up, you're a maverick worth following into battle. Used sparingly, not a bad outcome either way...

HR Pros: If You Can't/Won't Recruit, You're a Secretary...

2009-11-16T07:52:00-06:00

I said the following last week on a show called the HR Happy Hour: "There's a word for HR pros who don't recruit - they're called secretaries".

I thought about what I wanted to say for about 10 seconds before I said it. I pondered "administrators". Didn't get the effect I was looking for, so I opted for secretaries. I got some emails and tweets that said I called all HR pros secretaries. That's not true - I called HR pros who can't/won't recruit secretaries. Big difference.

I'm a HR Generalist. My definition of that is that I do it all - recruit, employee relations, benefits, performance management, etc. I'm also a firm believer that Generalist roles span the globe of HR titles - Generalists can be found at the Rep/individual contributor, manager, director and VP levels.

So, here's the deal - The death of the generalist is overblown. Sure, specialists are alive and well in bigger companies that get press, but in the guts of the American economy, companies still hire generalists to take care of HR business. That will continue. As Flavor Flav once said, "don't believe the hype", especially when it comes to the death of the HR generalists.

In fact, there's only one thing that can prevent you from being a thriving HR generalist along the lines of my definition - an unwillingness to chase the most valuable aspects of your craft - whether you're asked to or not. Those aspects generally revolve around talent management - starting with recruiting - not administrative activities.

You're good at the administrative side of the business? Congratulations. You allow it to suck up 95% of your time and you say you don't have time to do any recruiting or other talent management activity? Allow me to withdraw my back-pat. You have an efficiency problem and/or you're simply settling for the things you are most comfortable with.

And the world views you as a secretary whether you are a male or a female. Do a 360 on yourself with tough questions and learn the reality. Tell the CEO what you're focused on and what you don't have time to do. See what she says. If she's honest, she'll agree with me. Or she'll start looking harder to outsource the transactional side of your business. Which you just told me is what you focus on.

The best HR pros, especially on the generalist side of the business, don't allow themselves to be defined by transactions. They commit a certain percentage of time to transactions and protect time to go after the most valuable contributions they can make to the business. Chasing true talent issues (or not) is a choice that every generalist makes. It's there for you to focus on.

What are the most valuable things for you to work on as a generalist? It all starts with your ability to go after talent from the recruiting side. I've come into departments whose definition of that was posting a job on Monster and then forwarding 100 resumes with no screening to a hiring manager.

They called that recruiting. I called it being a secretary. And it happens more places than you might think.

You think you belong in the NextGenHR classification? You better show some passion towards the pure talent side of the business. While I'm focused on recruiting, you could easily plug in performance management, organizational development, etc. But you've got to do those things while you keep all the other balls (administration) in the air. If you are mad as you read this, that's OK. I'm challenging you to really think about what's meaningful in an HR practice.

Don't hate. Be a player. Don't be a secretary.

Special Note to Those Upset at the Blurring Line Between Work and Life...

2009-11-13T08:00:00-06:00

Stop whining. The revolution will not be televised - or at least that's what Flavor Flav told me. Beatings will continue until morale improves.

Fights will go on as long as they have to....

Work/Life balance was one of the topics for a recent roundtable sponsored by Halogen Software (the HR Raging Debates Roundtable), one of my favorite vendors in the Talent Management sotware space. The roundtable participants include thought leaders: Josh Bersin, President and CEO, Bersin & Associates; Peter Cappelli, Professor of Management at The Wharton School; David Creelman, CEO, Creelman Research; Kris Dunn, VP of People, DAXKO and blogger at HR Capitalist and Fistful of Talent (WHO?); Richard Hadden, author of the Contented Cows leadership books; Lance Haun, Vice President of Outreach, MeritBuilder and blogger at Rehaul; Sharlyn Lauby, President, Internal Talent Management Group and blogger at HR Bartender; Ed Lawler, Distinguished Professor of Business at the Marshall School of Business; Laurie Ruettimann, Blogger at PunkRock HR; and Libby Sartain, former CHRO of Yahoo! Inc. and Southwest Airlines, author, and HR advisor.

It's a cool series, so go check it out.

Back to the topic - we discussed work/life balance and even coined a new phrase - "weisure". Here's the question for today from the series:

Is "weisure" good for business or do we need to maintain boundaries between work and leisure?

Here's what I said:

"Unless you are an hourly worker in America, boundries between work and leisure are dead. Work bleeds into life, and life bleeds into work. People have the smart phone, aka the “digital leash”. Work will never be the same. It’s already gone.

For those of you who say you’re going to enforce your own boundries and not work when you’re out of the office, I hope you’ve already made your bones in your career. Why? Because if you’re competing against others, the boss getting a response from a team member within 20 minutes vs having to wait until the next morning to hear from you means one thing: You’ll be in the job you’re currently holding for a long, long time.

Perception is reality.

As for the talent, “weisure” means one thing. You’re going to be working away from the office, so find something you love for a career — otherwise you’re going to hate your life. For the company – if you have any smartphones in your workforce, PLEASE stop making your talent that holds a smartphone take 3 hours of PTO to go to the doctor. You’re trying to have it both ways, and it’s lame. You may think you’re hardcore on this, but trust me – the managers who get it have already stopped tracking PTO for stuff like this - regardless of your policy.

My favorite part about the response is that work/life balance is a choice, as is working 50 vs. 40 hours. You can do it. There's also someone out there more than willing to outwork you or be responsive on the weekends.

Choose wisely, my friends. And check out the other responses in the Raging Debate series by clicking here....

You Are Where You Sit at the Table - Psych/Business 101...

2009-11-12T08:05:00-06:00

We're doing 2010 planning meetings this week at DAXKO. While we're at it, we did a team Myers-Briggs so we could get into each other's heads like a therapist. Why stop there? I'm a people watcher and one thing came to mind in a big conference room - where do you sit at the table when you have a choice? Reminded me of this true conversation between a younger HR Capitalist and a HR Capitalist mentor/boss:

Young HR Capitalist - (Sitting down for a meeting at a chair on the wall away from the conference room table)

Boss - What are you doing?

Young HR Capitalist - Huh?

Boss - Why aren't you sitting at the table?

Young HR Capitalist - I know we are having a lot of people here and I'm not really involved in this one, so I was going to sit off to the side where I could work a little, ya know?

Boss - Sit at the table. Like a player, cause you are one.

Young HR Capitalist - Did you always sit at the table coming up through the ranks?

Boss - When I was an analyst at (Name of Company deleted), I got to meetings early, sat right at the middle of the table. The VP's came in late, I dared them to call me out in front of the team. (expletive deleted) them, get to the meeting earlier. Like you now, moving up to the table (motions me up and stops talking and goes back to blackberry).

Young HR Capitalist - (Moving my work up to the table, turning off Blackberry to avoid temptation to check it and the resulting public humiliation. VP's filing in see no open seats, glare at me in my non-VP-ness, then take seat on wall, making mental note to make life difficult for me moving forward.)

And so it goes in corporate America, where the type of office, the type of laptop, the type of phone and now, where you sit is all a part of your status and identity in the pack. Business Week had a nice breakdown of the importance of where you sit at the table a couple of years back (the picture above is from that article, including the following intro:

"The client was a senior female executive at a major global company. She was hardworking, bright, and well-liked, but she had one big frustration: People often ignored her ideas at meetings.

After watching the woman interact with colleagues, executive consultant Constance Derick offered several suggestions. One of the most important: "I told her to stop sitting against the wall and sit around the table instead." Within six months, co-workers were commenting that she had more "executive presence and spoke with greater conviction," says Derick.

The moral of the story: Where you sit influences where you stand. If you take away their Brooks Brothers suits, Manolo Blank shoes, and BlackBerrys, managers are little more than naked apes--social mammals with primal methods of expressing group power hierarchies. Over the past few years, psychologists and consultants have begun to decode the secret meaning of office behavior and to understand one of the business world's deepest mysteries: Why do people tend to sit in the same place at routine meetings?"

Me? I prefer the seat at the middle of the table. If you believe the chart above from BW, that's in line with the HRness of the Capitalist. Paid to mediate, using powers for good, not bad.

Or maybe it's the best seat from which to stir things up. I can never tell...Oh - and the table we have this week is round. Totally screws up the analysis.

Where do you sit?

Should You Tell An Employee That They Are Part of a Talent Pool For Succession?

2009-11-11T08:19:00-06:00

Only if you feel like retaining them, which is an honest, if somewhat ironic answer.

Anyway, this question was one of the topics for a recent roundtable sponsored by Halogen Software (the HR Raging Debates Roundtable), one of my favorite vendors in the Talent Management sotware space. The roundtable participants include thought leaders: Josh Bersin, President and CEO, Bersin & Associates; Peter Cappelli, Professor of Management at The Wharton School; David Creelman, CEO, Creelman Research; Kris Dunn, VP of People, DAXKO and blogger at HR Capitalist and Fistful of Talent (WHO?); Richard Hadden, author of the Contented Cows leadership books; Lance Haun, Vice President of Outreach, MeritBuilder and blogger at Rehaul; Sharlyn Lauby, President, Internal Talent Management Group and blogger at HR Bartender; Ed Lawler, Distinguished Professor of Business at the Marshall School of Business; Laurie Ruettimann, Blogger at PunkRock HR; and Libby Sartain, former CHRO of Yahoo! Inc. and Southwest Airlines, author, and HR advisor.

It's a cool series, so go check it out.

Here's one of the topics that interested me - not because we haven't talked enough about it, but because I was interested to see what the others would say:

Should you tell an employee that they are part of a talent pool for succession?

Here's my answer:

"Yes. You should also tell them you like their teeth better than the others as well.

On a serious note, I think you need to tell talent they’re included in the succession plan if you have one. One of the big benefits to succession planning is retention if people know they’re on the list. Imagine the following conversation:

–You: Rick just resigned.

–Your CEO: Wasn’t he the next up for the controller role?

–You: Yes.

–CEO: Why did he leave if he knew he was up next and Pirkle (current controller) is getting ready for the stretch role in strategy?

–You: Well, because we wanted to be fair and ensure that people who aren’t a part of the succession plan feel OK about themselves, we decided not to tell people who are a part of the succession plan that they are on the list.

–CEO: What if I didn’t tell you you’re in danger of being fired? Would that be fair?

So, here’s the bottom line. I know there are lots of employee relations issues related to telling talent they’re a part of the succession plan, but you have to do it. You have the plan (at least partly) for them. So tell them."

Go check out the responses of Sartain, Cappelli, etc. for this and other questions at the Halogen Software HR Raging Debates Roundtable. See how I stack up. And vote me up while you're there.

Do You Really Need to Manage the Different Generations Differently?

2009-11-10T08:46:00-06:00

I was recently included in a panel of 10 HR Experts in the Halogen Software HR Raging Debates Roundtable. This virtual roundtable brought together industry leaders including HR analysts, practioners, authors, social media pundits and academics to weigh in on some of the hottest HR and talent management topics currently faced by HR pros, including appraisals, succession planning, managing the generations and weisure.

If it's focused on experts, why was I involved again?

The roundtable participants include thought leaders: Josh Bersin,President and CEO, Bersin & Associates; Peter Cappelli, Professor of Management at The Wharton School; David Creelman, CEO, Creelman Research; Kris Dunn, VP of People, DAXKO and blogger at HR Capitalist and Fistful of Talent (WHO?); Richard Hadden, author of the Contented Cows leadership books; Lance Haun, Vice President of Outreach, MeritBuilder and blogger at Rehaul; Sharlyn Lauby, President, Internal Talent Management Group and blogger at HR Bartender; Ed Lawler, Distinguished Professor of Business at the Marshall School of Business; Laurie Ruettimann, Blogger at PunkRock HR; and Libby Sartain, former CHRO of Yahoo! Inc. and Southwest Airlines, author, and HR advisor.

It's a cool series, so go check it out.

Here's one of the topics that interested me - not because we haven't talked enough about it, but because I was interested to see what the others would say:

Do You Really Need to Manage the Different Generations Differently?

Here's my answer:

"I’m a big believer that you might need to tweak your employment branding to message to the different generations in an effective way. For example:

–Gen Y – “Our soda is free and we’ve bought a carbon offset for the lights. Damn it feels good to be green”.

–Gen X – “Check out the pictures of our outing to the Pearl Jam Reunion Tour this summer. Good times. Did we mention we’re holding the boomers to the original retirement dates they gave us? Can’t have the Gen X ceiling because those boomers won’t retire.”

–Boomers – “Be sure to see our “best in class” employee contribution rates towards our medical plan, as well as the quality of the plan as evidenced by the low deductibles. Did we mention we’re stack ranking those cocky Gen Y kids?”

I kid, but I think the time to manage generations differently is in the recruiting process. Sell what you got, my friends. Once the talent is in the door, I think everyone wants to know what’s in it for them, and I also think every generation starts out their careers by wanting to fast-track. So I think you have to address that with the younger folks in your organization, but I’m not sure that’s much different than it was for the young Gen Xers I used to know.

A funny thing happens to young folks from every generation that turns their focus from Mt. Dew to stability: Kids and mortgages. When a generation stops having those two things enter their lives, call me. I might change my stance. Once you get beyond the youth equation, I think every generation has stars, role players and low performers. I think the most effective approach is to manage talent based on their talent level rather than their age.

Except for Gen Xers. You should always treat those people special."

Go check out the responsesof Sartain, Cappelli, etc. And why you are at it, vote my response up! Feel free to vote Laurie Ruettimann down, because it's gone all bloods vs. crips between the two of us., Actually, it's probably not bloods versus crips. It's more like West Side Story before the finger snaps weren't considered macho enough for someone with my muscle tone.

Cursing: One Way to Identify a Bogus "I'm Offended!" Claim...

2009-11-09T10:18:34-06:00

You're an HR pro. If you're a generalist like me (and I define that as an individual contributor, manager, director or VP who's responsible for everything HR-related under the sun), that means you have employee relations as part of your job for your client group of departments/divisions you serve. That means from time to time you're going to be the recipient of a COMPLAINT, known to those like you and me in the biz as an EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CLAIM.

The amount of these you get is directly related to the business you are in. Blue collar businesses (manufacturing, hourly workers and call centers) generate more employee relations issues, while white collar businesses/departments generate far fewer.

Whatever your situation, you have to be able to tell instinctually what's real and what's not when it comes to these claims. It's what separates a true HR pro from someone who spins their wheels daily.

How do you tell if an employee relations claim is real or not? Focus first on clearly identifying the claims that are bogus.

Case in point. The "I'm offended by someone's language" claim. Here's an example from the NFL, which is similar to your workplace in more ways than you might think:

"Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall says Atlanta coach Mike Smith cursed at him and a Falcons assistant tried to "get some licks in" during a sideline melee Sunday.

Hall said he plans to file a complaint with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that Smith "cussed me out" and Falcons director of athletic performance Jeff Fish and others "put their hands on me."

So - you've got a complaint on your hands that cursing was used during an altercation, and someone put their hands on the employee filing the complaint. See? Just like your business - someone cursed me and that's against our professional conduct policy. So they're filing a complaint.

How do you sort out how much credibility the claim has and whether the employee was really offended by the language?

LOL. Start by listening to the language the employee uses to describe the situation. Here's more from DeAngelo:

"Hall, a former Falcon, said he was trying to get Landry away from the Falcons sideline when Smith, assistant Jeff Fish and several Atlanta players surrounded him. "After that, coach Smith came over to me, talking (expletive) to me, saying they were going to kick my (butt)," Hall said, via the AP. "I stay in Atlanta during the offseason, so if Mike Smith wants to see me, he can definitely find me."

Note to self and to any HR pros who are finding their way in the employee relations sections of their current role. If someone is filing a complaint related to bad language and uses the phrase, "then he came up and started talking (expletive) to me", it's likely that individual wasn't truly offended.

They're using curse words to describe the cursing actions of someone else, and trying to pimp you into using your cycle times to make life difficult for an adversary.

The irony. Do the minimum possible to close the claim and move on.

You laugh, but in blue collar businesses, the manipulative claim happens all the time.

I repeat. Do the minimum possible to close the claim and move on. Or like Ice-T once said, "you played yourself."

Hey HR Pros! Stay Classy When You Have Jobs and Nobody Else Does...

2009-11-06T13:41:00-06:00

If you're lucky enough to be working for a company that has jobs to fill and candidates to source during this downer of an economy, take a deep breath - a lot of your peers aren't in that position. It's a great (make that the preferred) position to be in, and chances are you're going to see more candidates than usual, although I've written in the past that I still believe the true passive candidate is hunkering down where they are, rather than looking for a new gig in this economy. After all, if their company hasn't had layoffs, why would they take the risk on a company they really know nothing about?

But back to the point. + (when most don't have them to offer) = and your company in a position of power over candidates>. That's the good news. But don't get cocky - candidates will still judge how they're treated by your company when the economy sucks, and if you rough them up during the process just because you can, they're going to stick it to the man when the next gold rush begins.

In other words, like Ron Burgundy said, "stay classy San Diego". More on that topic from a past Business Week post:

"Advice to companies tempted to play hard ball with job applicants as unemployment rates rise: Think again. Employees who say they were mistreated during hiring feel less committed—for years. Researchers at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management surveyed roughly 100 MBA graduates about how they were hired by their employers. Those who felt they had been treated unfairly were twice as likely to be looking for opportunities outside their company, says Vanderbilt management professor Ray Friedman, “even after five years.”

On his list of common “interactional injustices” during hiring are slow responses from employers, offers that are withdrawn if not accepted immediately, and “a company whose attitude is, ‘You need us.’” The lesson for businesses positioning themselves to succeed in the economic recovery: “Don’t abuse the momentary power you have as an employer. It’ll come back to bite you.”

On that list, slow responses are a chronic problem, so I'll pass on that. The real power for people like you with jobs to offer in a bad economy is money and respect. Don't lowball someone because you can, treat the candidate like you want them to be around for a long time.

The take it or leave it attitude? I suspect that's laziness on our part, not selling as hard as we can, because we don't have to in recession. Keep selling why they should be a part of the team, even if you're not competing against anyone else.

As for the vanishing offer where you can't give the candidate a few days to ponder their future? If you do that, you're a pig. And you get what you deserve when the candidate (now an employee) emails you their resignation letter and doesn't work out a notice two years from now.

Why I Work Where I Do...(and on a related note, the launch of DAXKOnation)

2009-11-05T10:56:00-06:00

I started my career by working for Fortune 500's as a HR pro, and life was good. I was young, smart (my opinion, maybe no one else's) and in need of an environment to learn the business of HR. The Fortune 500's I worked for provided great tools (Cingular), mentors and a cowboy frontier (Charter - 70 locations and 3,000 employees in my client group from 14 different companies slapped together by an acquisition happy Paul Allen) to learn from.

In every one of those situations, the inevitable happened. Bureaucracy crept in, and the job didn't feel as groovy as it once did. So I moved on.

After the client group of 3,000 employees where I honed my employee relations chops (can you say "on the job employment attorney?" I thought ya could kids!), I took a different path: I moved to a small, venture capital backed software company in 2004. Good move KD- I got the opportunity to build a HR shop from the ground floor up and flex all the big company tools I had learned from in the Fortune 500 world.

Then I got bored after 4 years. Is that a trend? Do I have a touch of ADD? Does getting bored after 4 years count as ADD? Some would say yes...

Now I'm at DAXKO. I walked into a shop that had been voted one of the 50 best small to medium size employers by SHRM for 2 straight years, and that wasn't my doing. But it sets the stage for why I'm here.

I'm looking for companies that have a culture where team members can experiment with anything that strikes them as interesting. DAXKO is that kind of place, so a few months ago I started tinkering with the intersection of the things I like: culture, personal brand, showcasing talent and digital media. The result is DAXKO Nation, so click through and take a look.

The cynics will say it's another blog. They're right. BUT, how many other places will you find a company that's willing to allow employees to blog about anything they want without going through an elaborate legal process? How many other places could I experiment with copy from Jerry McGuire to describe our company's culture? Some copy from the culture page of DAXKOnation:

"Ah yes… the topic of company culture. So often bandied about, so difficult to live up to.

We’re reminded of super-agent Jerry Maguire, who once put a mission statement on paper and lost his job as a result. Our favorite part of that Mission Statement? Kick it for us old school, Jerry:

“Let us work less hard to sign the clients that we know won’t matter in the long run, and work twice as hard to keep the ones who will. I believe in these words, and while they may not yet be true for you, they are true for me. And I ask that you read this with that in mind.”

Replace “clients” with “team members”, and that’s how we feel about talent - it’s reflected in our culture. We only want the ones who can make a difference, and we talk about it every single day."

Poke around the site and let me know what you think. Internal bloggers get their own badge (ala Fistful of Talent) once they produce 3 quality posts, and yes, we've asked ourselves the "what happens if people use this to recruit our best talent?" question. Our answer? We're better off helping them stretch by writing to both internal and external audiences. We think we have enough going on to retain them. If we don't, we expect three quality referrals from them in the first year they're gone, or we pull the neutral references (I kid..)

We've been in a soft launch for about a month now, and we're ready to get started with the heavier promotion and engagement, inside our company and out, with customers, candidates and folks on the outside who are interested.

Last thought: If you get an email from me, you'll see a tagline in my signature that looks something like this:

KD

DAXKO

205.xxx.1247 (phone)

205.xxx.9600 (cell)

@kris_dunn (twitter)
Connect with me on LinkedIn

The HR Capitalist (Blog)

Fistful of Talent (Blog)

DAXKOnation - The Blog Your Company Would Have If Lawyers Didn't Run the World...

The DAXKO Culture - Jerry McGuire just called, he wants his Mission Statement back...

I work at a place that will allow me to mix it up in that flavor without approval. Need I say more?

HR: The Perfect Choice to Defend Talent From Work/Life Balance Issues...

2009-11-04T15:26:37-06:00

I posted yesterday on the work ethic required to be a star, and more importantly, the fact that I continue to run into super sharp people who say they want to be stars, but won't put in the time to outwork others and are outraged/miffed when told that's what it takes. Bottom line - if you want to be the Bono (U2) of your field, you probably shouldn't think leaving or checking out at 4:55 is your god-given right.

Tim Sacket commented with this, which I thought was significant enough to call for a post of its own:

"Interesting that as HR Pros, we are suppose to be the work-life balance gatekeepers for our organizations - yet the data shows superstars probably aren't the most balanced individuals, and as HR Pros we are suppose to be developing the most talented organization we can."

Which brings me to the question of the day: "Is HR expected to defend organizational talent from work-life encroachment issues?" I think the mindset of most organizations is yes, mainly because employee satisfaction as measured by positive engagement scores or crappy turnover stats is usually calculated by the HR department. Additionally, if the gal you work for is a slave-driver, who you gonna call with your employee relations issue? Accounting? The skip-level manager? I don't think so...

If you're having job problems, I feel bad for you son.... But here's the deal if you've got a work-life balance issue and you think I can solve it as your HR pro:

1. Like Frasier Crane, I'm listening. Good HR pros will listen a lot just to figure out what makes you tick. I'll help if I can, but the answer probably lies at the intersection of your goals, outside of work life and your personal drive.

2. I know my organization needs good 9 to 5 people. We just can't afford to have nothing but 9 to 5 people.

3. It's OK for you to be one of those 9 to 5 people. Just know that if we've reached our quota of 9 to 5 people (good thing for you that that quota hasn't really been firmed up as of yet), things might start feeling like a TV knock off of "Survivor".

4. It's problematic for you to want to be a star and have work/life balance. Just ask my buddy Gladwell (not Rockwell).

5. You have to be ready for the tough love: You may need a new manager, a new job, or a new company.

Bottom line? When it comes to work/life balance issues, HR pros are therapists. We listen, and if Mommy didn't love you, we empathize. The best HR pros will give you the real deal and if necessary, tell you you're accountable for finding a balance that works for you - and the manager, company and family you work for.

We listen. You choose. Next Caller...

Being a Star - Either Put In More Hours Than Others, or Start Eliminating Stuff (But Stop Whining)...

2009-11-03T10:31:00-06:00

Being a star - everybody wants to be one, but few want to (or perhaps can) do what it takes to be one. I'm reminded of the fact that most stars become stars because they simply outwork all the people who won't do what it takes to become world class. Ryan Estis reminded me of that this week:

"Bono is a Rockstar. I was fortunate enough to see the U2 360 Concert recently. And it was Passion on Purpose on display. And all of that Passion and Preparation translated into a monster Performance. Its a real pleasure watching artists, who take so much pride in their craft, perform at the top of their game. In those moments of witnessing near flawless execution, that seems so natural, it can also minimize the countless hours of real hard effort that comes first. Bono told a great story on a chilly night in Norman, Oklahoma a couple weeks ago about having played Norman 26 years prior about a mile down the road. In a small bar, to a small crowd, as relative unknowns. He simply said “it took 26 years for us to move a mile down the road”…….to a sold out stadium of 60,000 mesmerized fans. What a journey. What a great gig. But it sure didn’t start out that way. In fact, in took 26 years of Passion on Purpose.

I am reading the book Outliers. Where Malcom Gladwell (http://www.gladwell.com/) puts forth the notion that it takes 10,000 hours to achieve expertise or mastery. Real hard effort. Real big sacrifice. And real tough to achieve Rockstar Status if you don’t really love what you do. Being a Rockstar in your own chosen vocation isn’t really all that different. You typically get out what you put in. The edge usually goes to those willing to give a little more than most. A mentor and friend continually reminds me to think about doing the 1% that the 99% isn’t or simply isn’t willing to do. What he likes to call “the hard yards”. And I woke up this morning taking my own self assessment: Have I put in my 10,000 hours? Was I willing to earn the hard yards?"

So, if you want to be a star, you have to put in the time, right? What about work/life balance?

Work/life balance is a choice. You won't be able to be your version of Bono with work/life balance as your goal. More and more, I run into super sharp people who are amazed at the entitlement culture of talented folks who say they want to be stars, but won't put in the time to outwork others and are outraged when told that's what it takes. It's an interesting thing. The folks who are talented say they want to be a star and don't think they should have to sacrifice anything to get there. The leaders who mentor them just shake their heads as they witness the disconnect (most of the headshakers outworked others and combined it with their natural talents and strengths to get where they are).

Are there other options? Just one...

If you don't want to outwork others on the way to being a star, you need to start eliminating things that you don't think matter, the things you can get away with not doing, not being involved with at work. Create the time within whatever work ethic you have, then use the hours you gained from elimination to pursue a niche that's going to make you a star to your organization or the world at large. I'm reading the "4 Hour Workweek", and I've described it as "Getting Things Done", but much, much meaner. Instead of getting organized and working a system ala GTD, the 4 Hour Workweek is going to teach you not to index those activities, but instead to simply stop doing them. Just stop.

You want to be a star. Either start outworking people, or tell them their priorities aren't yours. Either be the hardest working person in business, or the nastiest.

Or stop whining. You've got three choices actually.

Interviewer Sabotage: The Worst Candidates Hired at Google Do the Best in their Jobs...

2009-11-02T08:00:00-06:00

Maybe you should be scared when all the folks who interview a candidate in your company come back with high marks. After all, GROUPTHINK is alive and well in every company, including yours. Don't tell me it's not, because it is. Heck, I work at a great place and it's alive and well here. It just happens, it's human nature. We like people like us. Aren't they great?

Could it be that when some folks like the candidate, and some find him/her to be repulsive to the point of questioning your ability as a recruiter, that you've found a STAR?

Google thinks so. Prepare for your head to start smoking.

Gawker recently highlighted Q&A at Amazon with Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, former Google director of search quality, as part of the new book Coders at Work. Here's what Norvig had to say about which candidates tend to perform the best once hired at Google:

"One of the interesting things we've found, when trying to predict how well somebody we've hired is going to perform when we evaluate them a year or two later, is one of the best indicators of success within the company was getting the worst possible score on one of your interviews. We rank people from one to four, and if you got a one on one of your interviews, that was a really good indicator of success.

Get your head around that for a second. Your first reaction (like Gawker) is probably that Google doesn't know what it's doing and their whole hiring process is a sham. That's your first reaction, because it's so fun to take shots at the great places to work.

Then, like me, you probably start thinking about human nature in your own company. Everyone agrees that the candidate is great? Probably means your team didn't dig enough on the candidate to find flaws that would be controversial. If you can find one dissenter out of three or four, at least you've got polar extremes and diversity of thought on whether the candidate would be a good fit.

Two out of four don't like the candidate for the job in question? That's interesting, and you've got some things to sort through.

One out of four doesn't like the candidate? That person's probably protecting turf and thinks the candidate in question would be disruptive to the team and to what's already been accomplished.

Which, of course, is EXACTLY what your company needs from a talent perspective.

Leaks, Snitches and Company Responses in the Age of Transparency...

2009-10-29T15:31:55-05:00

It's scary out there folks. Remember the old days when people had to pick up the phone and identify themselves to a human being in order to file a complaint on your company culture? Well...I don't remember those days either, but I'm told they used to exist, and it was SWEET. Companies held all the power.

Then this web thing happened. Then the web took performance enhancing drugs and became social media and...BAM! Everyone's an editor, everyone's a content provider and if things go wrong or are messed up in your company....everyone's a snitch via glassdoor or just dropping an anonymous email to their favorite blogger.

Can't we stop these employees from being so transparent? Can't we put the genie back in the bottle?

Probably not. But if the leaks or full disclosure from your company gets out of hand, you can always put out a memo saying that those who talk about your culture in an unauthorized way are subject to the "immediate termination" provision in your handbook. More on such a note that recently went out at ESPN from Deadspin:

"A Message from George Bodenheimer

Top Story 10/23/09 @ 4:19 PM

ESPN is clearly one of the most dynamic companies in the world and we take great pride in our work. Our success often leads to media stories about our business and people. Those stories are often very positive, but not always.

During the last few days, we have received a fair amount of unwanted media coverage, including a series of Internet posts where the editor expressly stated that many of these items were based on rumor and that they had not attempted to verify their accuracy. Compounding this issue is my disgust that some of our own unidentified employees are leaking materials to the media thereby contributing in a significant way to these destructive efforts. As you know, we have policies that govern how and who should be in contact with the media regarding the company. I feel it is very important to make clear to all employees that violating these policies is a serious offense which can, and very likely will, result in the immediate termination of employment of the offending employee.

ESPN has a hard working, creative culture that produces outstanding content every day. Our culture and our people are the keys to our continuing success. I also want to reaffirm our commitment to maintaining a workplace where all employees have the opportunity to grow, are free from harassment of any kind and are respectful and positive toward each other.

If anyone feels that we are not living up to our commitment or that your work environment, either in our offices or at any remote location, is of concern, you can and should bring that to the attention of your supervisor, your HR business partner, our HR Leader Paul Richardson, Ed Durso or to me personally.

Our mission is to serve sports fans. Our values call for us to show care and respect for all employees. I want to assure you the leadership of ESPN is committed to achieving both."

The memo is in response to Deadspin getting tons of info regarding the Steve Phillips' saga directly from tips originating from the ESPN campus. Read this on that situation if you haven't already. ESPN did a nice job of working the "environment free of harassment" language in. Is the threat of termination regarding leaks fair or foul?

I'm not sure. Regardless of your view, you can bet the leaks will continue in the age of transparency. It's a brave new world for companies out there...