The HR Capitalist

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On his list of common “interactional injustices” during hiring are slow responses from employers, offers that are withdrawn if not accepted immediately, and “a company whose attitude is, ‘You need us.’”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...

High Integrity - You Don't Know It's Missing Until There's An Explosion...

2009-10-28T17:03:20-05:00

Work with me a little bit on this post... I did a post over at Fistful of Talent a couple of days back called "Want to Define Your Talent DNA? Don't Waste the Values Section Included in Your Performance Review"... The premise of the post is simple: If a company truly wants to drive culture, they ought to put what they really value on the old "Company X Values" section of the Performance Review.

Unfortunately, it's usually soft things that are included in the Values section, and you have to watch that - even if you value them. For example, consider the competency "Integrity" that's often included in this section of the review. How can someone exceed your expectations regarding Integrity? Here's how the conversation around integrity usually goes when included in the performance management system:

Team Member: I saw you gave me a "meets' in Integrity. I have high integrity!

Manager: I'm not saying you don't, I'm just unsure of how to measure what's meeting and what's exceeding...

Team Member: Well, I have high integrity. I deserve the exceeds and I'm a little miffed that you have me as "meets"

Manager: OK, give me some examples of how your integrity exceeds that of your peers.

Team Member: Well, I've never stolen office supplies from the company, or stolen anything large.

Manager: Have you ever seen anyone take something that didn't belong to them?

Team Member: Sure.

Manager: Did you report it?

Team Member: No, I'm not a tattletale.

Manager: Well, holding everyone in the organization to your high standards regardless of the consequences might be a good example of an "exceeds" in integrity.

Team Member: Well, that's not me. Wait! I've got one. You know how we'll waive the contract penalty related to early cancellation if they escalate their call or complaint? Well, I can't stand the inconsistency, so I tell all customers who call in how it works before they ask. You can't treat people differently, so my integrity makes me give that info to customers - it's the whole truth...

Manager: You won't report small incidents of stealing, but you'll cause our company to lose revenue based on your integrity? Really?

You get the point. Integrity is very important in every organization. It belongs in the mission statement and core values. You should talk about it as a company alot and reward the examples you can find.

But Integrity and its step-cousin, ethics, have no place in your performance management system. Why? Because they're impossible to give feedback to related to most employee's performance.

You don't know you have a problem with Integrity or Ethics until they're gone. Until there's a stench, a report or an explosion. When you smell the stench or see the explosion, move swiftly and take care of business.

Just don't set your managers up to fail with conversations like the one above...

Calculation of Bad Turnover - Don't Forget to Count Your Hiring Misses, You Sandbagger..

2009-10-27T07:59:00-05:00

I'm not trying to get all high and mighty on you by bringing this up, but…

You're a sandbagger of sorts when it comes to calculating "Good vs. Bad" Turnover. That's right - I called you a sandbagger. An appeaser. One who sucks up at the expense of the truth.

You wowed them when you broke out the cool kid metric and started reporting “Good vs. Bad” Turnover. Nice job, Billy. But at the end of the day, you were a hack. Just like the administrative hacks who came before you.

What’s good vs. bad turnover? Let’s define them like you did for your Sr.Team:

--Good Turnover – Includes all terminations that included employees who you’re generally happy to see go. This would include all the people you fire involuntarily, but also includes voluntary terms involving employees with performance, behavior and fit problems, and any other criteria where you look at a voluntary term and say, “that’s probably for the best”.

--Bad Turnover – Assuming you would never fire someone you don’t want to lose, Bad Turnover includes all voluntary terms where you say, “Man, I wish we weren’t losing them”.

You just went upstream and changed the game. You had them patting you on the back with your Good vs. Bad Turnover slide. There's just this one little problem, you sell out. In fact, you're such a sell-out that Bob Seger called to personally thank you for providing the world with a bigger example of a sell out than him licensing "Like a Rock" to Chevrolet and subjecting us to 2 straight years of the same ad.

Here's what you did - you failed to classify every new hire who left or was asked to leave in the first 12 months of their career with your company as BAD TURNOVER. Don't talk. Don't rationalize. If you hired someone and they were gone in the first 12 months of their tenure, it's BAD TURNOVER. You missed. The hiring manager missed. The employee had faulty expectations when they joined. You couldn't train them. Marge from accounting freaked them out with that scab thing.

Whatever. Doesn't matter. If they left in the first 12 months, It's BAD TURNOVER. Stop acting like it's not.

10 Ways The NBA Is Like Your HR Career....

2009-10-26T07:10:00-05:00

Let's face it - there aren't that many readers of this blog who are fans of the NBA (pro hoops for the uninitiated) like I am, so writing anything with "NBA" in the title is risky from a standpoint of watching readers walk to the door and hit "unsubscribe".

Still, it's a personal as well as a professional blog. With that in mind, screw it - I'm writing how I feel and with the NBA season starting up on Tuesday night, I bring you these 10 ways life in the NBA is like your HR career. Enjoy, you closet NBA fans:

10. The Birdman works for you and you get complaints daily. Sure, he's got tats everywhere, and once had a 3K crack habit. He can rebound so he stays. Plus he's clean and works hard. Random drug tests take care of the rest, right?

9. You've got a salary cap as well,, and based on the economy, like a lot of NBA teams you aren't using everything in the budget either...

8. You keep hearing that the best candidates are taking less money to go with a proven winner. That's OK - you don't need an attitude like Rasheed Wallace on the 4th floor anyway...

7. That last visa you sponsored didn't work out so well. Kind of like my man Sasha coming off the bench for the Lakers...

6. You don't work for a company, you work for a King who is the founder and so wealthy he does anything he wants regardless of your advice. At least he's not in the lunchroom in a t-shirt yelling about no calls like Mark Cuban... Wait - it's worse than that? Nevermind...

5. Your top salesperson just had photos of him, on a company junket,; show up on Facebook like the Miami Heat's Michael Beasley. Wait - it's OK - he said he didn't drink from any of the bottles on the table and the lady sleeping on the sectional next to him is his life coach...

4. You were proud of your city and your plush headquarters, then the C-level recruit you had to have slapped you in the face because his wife said your city wasn't European enough. Didn't you tell her about the reputation for great BBQ? I mean c'mon...

3. Moonlighting is now accepted in your company. You saw the light when one of your customer service managers started making some wholesome CD's on the side. Seems like a nice kid...

2. Everyone at your company is the same. See? The CEO even sits with the team - if you squint, you'll barely notice the fact that his chair is elevated 11 inches higher than everyone else's...

1. Your VP of Engineering just married Khloe Kardashian. That's not going to cause a focus issue, right?

Tip it off, because this is the league for which I'll stay up to watch meaningless games until 1am. It's all about the culture, right?

Spurs win the championship, over the Cavs in 6. Bank it!!

Spice Up Your Harassment Training: Screen "Fatal Attraction", then Share This Letter and 911 Call...

2009-10-23T08:11:00-05:00

A couple of weeks ago I wrote that the Office Hook Up = Lifetime Threat of Being Leveraged as we took a look at the Letterman case. The point was that if you choose to do office hookups, you've got that right as an American, BUT you'll give someone leverage against you if they ever need it. That's just good ol' American politics, workplace style.

Of course, I realize that probably didn't cause any behavior changes anywhere. With that in mind, I'm back with materials you can easily insert (I'm really not joking) into your Harassment training to bring it home to everyone, especially the guys. Just screen the relevant clips of Fatal Attraction, then distribute the timeline of events that is going to cause ESPN to fire on-air personality Steve Phillips. More from Deadspin:

"Reports out of ESPN headquarters this morning say that "Baseball Tonight" analyst Steve Phillips is on a "leave of absence," after an affair with a 22-year-old production assistant turned into a special edition DVD release of Fatal Attraction.

According to the New York Post's rather lengthy deconstruction of events, Phillips had a brief fling with a fellow ESPN employee named Brooke Hundleythis summer. He ended it rather quickly, which did not go over very well. She allegedly began harassing Phillips, his wife and even his teenage son—who she friended on Facebook by pretending to be a classmate, and then grilled him for personal information about the family.

The final straw came when Phillips' wife arrived at her home to see a strange woman coming down her driveway and getting into a car (which she promptly smashed into a pole while trying to make a quick getaway.) The woman had left a very creepy letter in the front door, addressed to Phillips wife. The full original letter is available on the Post website[PDF]"

If you really want to go shock and awe in your harassment training, just play this - TMZ has the 911 call from Phillips' wife after Hundley showed up at their house. Ugh...I'm serious when I say this - do your normal stale harassment training, then print the post article, the letter from the woman, then end the training with the 911 call. Have them sign your acknowledgment while they listen to the 911 call.

Then say, "Don't be Steve Phillips". Then drop your microphone and walk out of the room like Randy Watson, leaving the stage in Coming to America. Watch the clip here for the how to...

Vetting the Candidate's Spouse For Fun and Profit...

2009-10-22T04:09:00-05:00

So, you're a seasoned pro and know what you can and can't ask in an interview. Good for you - you're a legal eagle.

Ever drift into a conversation about spouses with a candidate? Happens all the time, especially with candidates you've developed a good conversation flow with who are...well...married.

Let's hope you didn't hear the following:

"Yeah, life with Sheryl has been great, except for":

1. "She's got a life threatening disease that may cause me to miss a year in the near future. So obviously I like the quality of your medical plan."

2. "That episode where her expense reports were misinterpreted by the authorities. We had to move to get a fresh start."

3. "The booze. And at times, the pills. It tends to make our family a bit of a roller coaster."

To be fair to HR pros who recruit and hiring managers everywhere, I've heard versions of all of these from candidates during my time as a HR player. To be fair to me (like you), I didn't ask - I guess I made the candidate comfortable enough where they just told me all this stuff.

What's a HR pro to do? Be thankful that for most of your positions, vetting the stability and skills of the spouse isn't a requirement, but the higher you go in corporate America, the more it matters.

More on vetting the spouse from the New York Times:

"IMAGINE the plight of the modern corporate director: you want to find the perfect chief executive to lead your organization, someone with top credentials and impeccable character. You know there is a heavy social component to the job — dinners, fund-raisers, travel — and so there is just one last thing you want to know.

What is the candidate’s spouse like? It is an all-too-common situation that pits Miss Manners against decades of labor and anti-discrimination law. No, in states like New York, a board of directors cannot even legally ask job candidates if they are married.

But yes, this sort of vetting goes on regularly.

The spouse has always been a silent part of the executive package, with committed partners doing everything from packing overnight bags to throwing client-entertaining dinner parties. Sitcom spouses of the 1950s and 1960s were assumed to be job appendages for their husbands: Lucy cooked and ran the home when she was not trying to horn in on important business meetings, while Samantha on “Bewitched” tried not to cast too many spells on Darrin’s advertising clients.

Today, it is still widely understood that a charming and organized spouse can be a boon to an executive who must rub elbows and raise money. The demands may differ from field to field — in academia, for instance, the spouse may play a different role than in politics, corporate America or the nonprofit world — but in each case it is a big help if the spouse fits in."

Can you imagine having to go to dinner with the spouse of every candidate you hired? WOW, or as they say in the Hindenburg business, "oh the humanity".

It's hard enough to get the sign-off on one person as the primary recruiter, so I'm glad the spouse doesn't have to be approved in most circumstances. Still, if you're a player and bound for that Fortune 500 EVP of HR role, brace yourself - there will be some candidate with spouse dinners in your future.

Let's just hope he or she doesn't have 3 Kojaks down before you're halfway done with your tea.

(Hat tip to friend of the Capitalist, Meg, for the vine to the NYT story...)

VPs of HR and Jury Duty: The World Thinks I'm An Outlier...

2009-10-21T08:29:00-05:00

Had jury duty this week, first time in my life. With that in mind, I joined 200 or so of my peers in a courthouse in Shelby County, Alabama to be divided into jury panels and be considered for inclusion on a jury that would decide whether someone was guilty or not guilty.

The only problem: The world doesn't think I have peers when it comes to Jury Duty. I don't mean that in a high and mighty way, either.

The world thinks I'm part of the unwashed masses when it comes to serving on a jury, an untouchable that can't be trusted to be impartial. You see, I'm a VP of HR. I've also got other things in my life that probably make me more toxic to a Defense Attorney than a FOX News reporter at an Obama White House Christmas party.

So Monday was the first day of Jury Duty. I reported to the courthouse and, through the luck of the draw, was segmented into a panel of 47 citizens from which a jury panel would be struck for this murder trial involving a former Pastor and his wife. First thing up? Tell us who you are and what you do:

Me: I'm Kris Dunn, I'm a VP of HR, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Defense and Prosection: (Silent. No follow up questions. I suspect one really liked that and one really didn't).

Next up, the prosecution asked their set of questions designed to help them figure out who to strike from the jury so they had their best shot at winning the trial. The Amercian system at its best. I didn't have to respond to any of their questions, because I didn't have any issues related to their questions that would cause me to be unable to be "fair and impartial".

After lunch, the Defense took the podium for the same purpose - to figure out who to strike to give them the best chance of winning the trial. It all started going to hell when this question came up:

Defense Attorney: Do any of you have members of your family who work in law enforcement?

Me: (raising hand and called upon) Yes. My wife's a former prosecutor for the DA's office in this building that's trying this case for the state, and she was in that role for 10 years.

Defense Attorney: I thought I recognized your name and her name when you said who you were married to! (writing notes and smiling..)

Defense Attorney: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. (noticeably absent: the follow-up question that everyone else got - whether, with that background, I could be fair and impartial and serve on the jury. He didn't care, because I was out...)

Later that afternoon, we were brought back in to watch the strike proceeding, in which the prosecution and defense take turns calling out the ID number of jurors to remove from consideration for the jury. They go back and forth until only 14 are left, which becomes your jury (12 + 2 alternates). I happened to figure out my overall number from a general count I made during role call when we were with the overall pool of 200 citizens, and I'm 99% certain that I was the first "strike" for the Defense.

Kind of like a fantasy football draft. But the stakes are much higher and you don't get to name a team "Belicheck Hoodies".

Good luck to the jurors who have to decide whether a shooting was an accident or murder. Makes an employment call as a VP of HR seem like small potatos, doesn't it?

Skipping Seniority and Rewarding High Performers - Darwinian or Genius?

2009-10-20T08:01:00-05:00

Let's say you have a large group of employees in the same job/position (we'll say more than 10 for the sake of argument, but in manufacturing and call center environments, it could be hundreds). How do you handle scheduling? The time-tested way in most environments is to use seniority - the longer you've been at the company, the earlier you get to pick your shift relative to your peers.

That usually meant that the newbies had to work nights and weekends, while the more experienced got nights and weekends off. Pay your dues, talented newbie, and perhaps you'll hang on long enough to get the hours a "normal" person works. Seems like that usually happens at the 6-12 month mark based on turnover in most environments.

I've been in environments with hundreds of employees in the same position, and we always talked about changing up the scheduled procedure to focus on performance rather than seniority. The main reason we didn't tweak it was employee relations. At the end of the day, we didn't want to risk alienating more tenured workers with average performance, which heightens the risk of unions organizing in many shops that fit this scenario.

Of course, there's always someone who's ready to mix it up, which is healthy. That someone, in this case, is the Ann Taylor retail clothing store, and Knowledge at Wharton gives us the rundown:

"Ann Taylor Stores -- a New York-based retailer of upscale women's clothing -- is using a new computer scheduling system that assigns the busiest and most desirable hours to employees with the strongest sales numbers. Those with less success on the selling floor get far fewer and less desirable hours when new schedules are posted.

While Wal-Mart Stores, Payless ShoeSource and other major retailers have moved to computer-driven scheduling systems that put more workers on the floor at the busiest times, Ann Taylor has added the dimension of individual sales productivity to the equation. Employees who were interviewed by The Journal say the system has resulted in sharp cutbacks in hours for some employees and has diminished morale. One worker who typically was assigned a regular 34-hour-a-week schedule before the system was installed had been cut back to just eight hours in some weeks. "Computers aren't very forgiving when it comes to an individual's life," one former Ann Taylor employee told the paper."

Hat tip to Ann Bares, who checked in on the topic over at Compensation Force, gives her thoughts:

"Ultimately, perhaps, this system has the desired effect of shaking out the less talented workers and leaving behind those with the most sales competency. While this churn is happening, however (and I would imagine that it happens on an ongoing basis as the workforce turns over), you have the likelihood of serious morale issues as employees who are struggling to achieve sales targets see their schedules shift and their hours drop, presumably until either their expenses or their frustration levels drive them to quit. Where does coaching and training come into play here? Or does it? As the article points out, information technology is no substitute for sound management."

Of course, most (if not all of us) will agree with Ann, when she says that a scheduling system that focuses on performance over tenure is no substitute for coaching and solid performance management (before the annual review).

The bigger play for me? Time is running out for companies to take a chance with systems like this. The potential passing of even a watered-down version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is going to make the change, the management related to a switch like this, impossible.

Why? There's employee relations risk any time you switch from a seniority scheduling module to something more progressive.

And that means you don't take risks that alienate average performers. Kind of stinks for the high performers, doesn't it?

Two Things That Bond Rush Limbaugh, The Dixie Chicks and Your Employees....

2009-10-19T08:02:48-05:00

What do your employees, Rush Limbaugh and the Dixie Chicks have in common? Easy - these two things:

1. It's America baby, so they can say whatever they want about anything, and;

2. The market, framed in various ways, can embrace what they say or turn from it.

It's one of the cool things about living in our country. Free Speech is alive and well, but at times, people confuse free speech with the right to say anything without ramifications from others, who by the way, are free to frame your thoughts and statements via their own reality.

So say anything you want. Just don't think that gives you the right to be immune from you losing various opportunities because you chose to exert your right to free speech. It happens with employees all the time across America (whose statements run afoul of harassment and anti-discrimination policies, as well as general good judgment). It happened with the Dixie Chicks when they dared to question the post-9/11 American response (they got pulled from the airwaves as a result of their rants).

Free speech - yes! Free speech with no potential ramifications - no!

Now Rush Limbaugh is feeling that reality. Regardless of your feelings about Rush, his recent failed bid for partial ownership of an NFL team is a perfect example of free speech at work in a capitalist marketplace. More on why Rush couldn't be a NFL owner from a fellow renegade owner in the NBA, Mark Cuban. From Cuban's blog, Blog Maverick:

"The problem with Rush is that its his job to take on all of life’s partisan issues and problems. Not only is it his job to take on these issues and problems, its key to his success that he be very opinionated about whichever issues he feels are important to him and/or will cause his very large audience to tune in. Given that we will never know what the “next big issue ” in this world that Rush will be discussing on his show is, its impossible for the NFL to even try to predict or gauge the impact on the NFL’s business if something controversial, or even worse yet, something nationally polarizing happens. There is an unquantifiable risk that comes with the size of Rush’s audience. The wrong thing said on the show, even if its not spoken by Rush himself, about a sensitive national or world issue could turn into a Black Swan event for the NFL.

Thats a huge risk that is not commensurate with the value a minority investment in a franchise brings.

This isnt about Free Speech. Its about the NFL protecting their business. There is no reason to put it at risk. If Rush were to retire from his show, or become a local DJ in Sacramento, or just about anything else he may want as a vocation, then I dont think they would have any problem with him being an investor in a team."

The Rush thing is a perfect learning opportunity for your employees. Let them know they've got the right to say anything they want as an America. Then tell them since they live in America, the market may vote "thumbs down" as a result, which could mean a lost promotion, being froze out by co-workers at work, or getting terminated because you might have to thin the herd as a result of what they say.

The market is the great equalizer to the right of free speech.

"Closing Time...You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here"...

Need to Resign From Your Job to Take My Offer? Here's What Your Length of Notice Means...

2009-10-16T14:42:34-05:00

You just accepted my verbal offer, now you're in the process of tendering your resignation with your current company. Here's what the length of the notice you negotiate means (white collar version, applies only to those currently employed):

--2 weeks- It can mean a lot of things, but generally speaking, if you negotiate two weeks notice it means that both parties agree that it's time for change. You've offered the minimum, they've accepted, and everyone agrees it's time to move on. Could be because business isn't good anyway, or that they're some general discord on one side or the other. Not judging, but let's face it, it's the minimum.

--3 weeks- You caught your current company flatfooted and/or they don't want to lose you. You're a good pro and when they panicked, you offered to do 3 instead of 2 weeks. You burn no bridges and that's generally a good sign.

--4 weeks - See three weeks - it's the same thing although you've allowed your company to guilt you into more than what's reasonable (which is three weeks).

--I'm out now or less than two weeks (for sales, finance or HR pros) - Probably means your company doesn't want you around the data. We'll take you early...

--I'm out now and there is no company policy or security issue as a reason why - OMG, did we make a mistake? Get me the background check summary, STAT...

Everything means something. Even the length of your notice...