One of the things I've always been a fan of is having potential factors as an alternative to company values.
Background: At Kinetix, we have potential factors instead of values. They're designed to identify what we value most in talent and as such, should be our guides in how we hire, promote and reward, and at times, fire.
You can find all of our potential factors in an online document/handbook we call The Kinetix Code.
If you want to rethink your company values and think about subbing them out for potential factors, here's your process:
1. You meet with your leadership team. There’s a lot of fancy ways to frame this, but it really comes down to answering the following question:
“Let’s think about the stars at our company. What is it about them, regardless of position, that makes them successful at our company? Give me single words that serve as adjectives to describe what our stars have behaviorally cognitively (no skills!) that other people don’t, and any word you give me has to be descriptive of the group of stars in your opinion – no words that apply to one or some and not the others.”
2. Do that, and you’ll end up with a brainstorming session about words they think are descriptive of the highest performers in your company. You’ll get as many as 70 words out of this process.
3. You take the raw list of words and start combining things that mean the same thing, or close to the same thing. For example, initiative and drive are closely related. When you find words that mean the same thing, your job is to put them on the same line and then decide what word best describes the behavior in your culture.
4. Once you do that offline and knock down the number, you’ll have a list of 20-25 words to choose your initial potential factors from. There are a lot of ways to pick the ones you want. Your CEO can look at it and tell you what he/she wants, you can pick and tell the team, or preferably, you can have a working session to discuss, maybe cull it down to a list of 10 factors the team generally believes are the best – then figure out how you’re going to cut it to ones you want to launch. I’m big on a shielded vote for those, which still allows you and your CEO/ops leader veto power without doing that in a public setting.
What's the right number of potential factors to have? Same number as values. 5-6 seems to be the sweet spot, do more that and you'll lose the capability to position themselves as important.
Good luck if you undertake this process - it's worth the time to take a look at.
When you think about big companies going down over the last couple of decades, it's really about corporations thinking their positions are insurmountable and being slow to try to develop new technologies and approaches that would replace the cash cow they found themselves with.
--Internet Explorer got overtaken by Chrome
--Blockbuster got overtaken by Netflix, and at the retail level even by RedBox
--<insert your own example here - there are many>
What's interesting to me about this aspect of change is that insurmountable positions aren't always replaced by better products per se. Instead, those strong competitive positions often get leapfrogged by competitors creating new access points.
Example - Microsoft was fat and happy with IE, but Chrome leapfrogged it as the operating system became less important and less central to the user experience. Of course, Chrome was a better product as well.
Another Example - Blockbuster loved it's retail approach, but Netflix started eating into it's market share as much by the mail order DVD access point as it's pricing model. Once broadband showed up, it was done.
That's why an interview a few years ago with then Google CEO Eric Schmidt uncovered that fact that Google views Amazon - not others routinely associated with search - as the biggest threat to its search business.
We all suspected the Echo’s purpose was – at least in part – to drive more Amazon sales. And that’s exactly what’s happening, according to a new study by NPD Group. The research company found that owners of the Echo spent around 10 percent more after they bought the voice-powered smart speaker than they did before.
Data for the study came from Echo’s full term of availability, which surprisingly actually spans two years (it feels like it’s been a lot less time to me). NPD also found that about half of the online spending done by Echo owners happens at Amazon.com once they pick up a device.
It’s not a huge deal for other retailers yet because of Echo’s somewhat limited reach thus far – NPD says it estimates around 1.6 million have sold thus far. But it’s a trend that could be very good for Amazon long-term, especially as it brings the Echo Dot back to market at a new, more affordable price point.
Voice search. That's a different access point that the way we've traditionally thought about search, and Amazon was first to the mass market with the Echo. The Echo is capable of voice interaction, music playback, making to-do lists, setting alarms, streaming podcasts, playing audiobooks, and providing weather, traffic and other real time information.
You know, the stuff you use Google and your smartphone for. It can also control several smart devices using itself as a home automation hub.
To Google's credit, they've never been slow to experiment. They're doing what they can to get Google Home (their competitive answer to the Echo) launched, but it's still not here.
New access points create change that eliminate dominant positions. Will Google always be dominant in search? History tells us no.
If you came because of that title looking for a serious post on intern programs, think again.
I was in Auburn Saturday night for LSU/Auburn and Auburn has a kicker that kicks it out of the end zone... every.single.time.
After an Auburn FG in the first half, Auburn did what it always does - it kicked it out of the end zone. But an enterprising young girl who works in the Auburn video/photo department and was a former ESPN intern thought she could shuffle from her position on the ground in the end zone and make the catch of the dead ball - from her knees.
The result was priceless. Email subscribers, click through for the video. Of special note is that she actually calls "I got it" before she takes it to the face. Good news is that she was fine. Obviously caught it on the cheek rather than in the nose.
I'd show this to your intern classes. If you're doing it right, the normal work equivalent of this is at least part of the experience they should get with your company.
"Over the last year there has been a recurrent refrain about the seeming bromance between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. More seriously, but relatedly, many believe Trump is an admirer and would-be emulator of Putin's increasingly autocratic and illiberal rule. But there's quite a bit more to the story. At a minimum, Trump appears to have a deep financial dependence on Russian money from persons close to Putin. And this is matched to a conspicuous solicitousness to Russian foreign policy interests where they come into conflict with US policies which go back decades through administrations of both parties. There is also something between a non-trivial and a substantial amount of evidence suggesting Putin-backed financial support for Trump or a non-tacit alliance between the two men."
In addition to countless mentions of Putin by Trump, there's also the not so little matter of Russia engaging in espionage to discredit the DNC and Hillary Clinton through leaks that happened after the democratic convention.
Before your eyes get sleepy, let's go back to my theory, allow me to explain and then we'll end this post.
Putin is the hiring influence that doesn't want your functional area to be strong, so they over-involve themselves in the feedback loop of a key leadership hire you're trying to make.
When you think about key leadership hires at your company, a couple of things are true:
1. Let's say your CEO or Divisional Head is trying to make a key hire on his/her leadership team. There's always going to be a process where that leader allows the other members of the leadership team to interview candidates to be their peer on that team.
2. The process almost always involves round robin interviews by those leadership team peers for the position in question.
3. At the end of that process, feedback is gathered. Do we want to hire the person? What's your recommendation? Yes or no?
4. Leadership team members have been known to play games. If they see a potential rival coming in that they think will negatively impact them, there's a chance they may be negative to push the CEO not to make the hire they believe would hurt their positioning.
5. The lengths they'll go to sabotage that process? Depends on the person.
I think Putin is getting involved for all the reasons people have stated. He's trying to influence the election, and it's interesting to me.
Why is it interesting? Because I've seen leadership team members go to great lengths to ensure they discredit a candidate any way they can.
In this scenario, Putin is a member of the leadership team of Earth.com. There's a search going on for a peer position on the leadership team. No CEO though.
Putin's threatened by a candidate that's coming in to be part of the leadership team. So he's going to do what leadership team members do that are threatened by a peer coming in. He's going to spin, discredit, etc - anything that will keep the candidate he doesn't want to see in that seat.
The big question? Which candidate is he trying to discredit? All signs point to Clinton. But with a Russian leader actively supporting an American candidate (Trump), it could actually be Trump he doesn't want to see in the seat. He is, after all, former KGB.
I saw this on the web recently and thought it had a lot of application beyond the way Apple and Google ideate and develop products:
"I’ve said before that Apple’s approach is about a dumb cloud enabling rich apps while Google’s is about dumb devices are endpoints of cloud services. That’s going to lead to rather different experiences, and to ever more complex discussions within companies as to what sort of features they create across the two platforms and where they place their priorities. It also changes somewhat the character of the narrative that the generic shift of computing from local devices to the cloud is a structural problem for Apple, since what we mean, exactly, when we say ‘cloud’ on smartphones needs to be unpicked rather more."
So, there's a lot there, but it basically means that Apple envisions great products and a dumb cloud, and Google dreams about dumb/basic products and smart cloud.
For me, I automatically thought about how we acquire talent, and in a competitive marketplace having a strategy about how you view the world.
Think about it this way - the device is the employee, and the cloud is your philosophy on developing that employee - what's available for them to plug into to make them better once they join you.
From a talent perspective, if you buy experienced, top dollar talent and don't have to train, you're more like Apple. If your strategy is to buy early career talent that's not as developed, but you're committed to plugging them into development resources, you're more like Google.
Both approaches can be killer. The biggest mistake you can make is to not have a philosophy.
If you’re the HR Pro I know you are, you’ve seen the same thing I have. You buy access to a great behavioral assessment platform to be more scientific with your hiring process and selection, then your company forgets about the tool once you make your decision on who to hire.
Sound familiar? Of course it does. That’s why RJ Morris and my FOT crew are back with our latest version of the FOT Webinar, brought to you by our friends at OutMatch. Join us on September 29th at 2pm EDT (1pm
—Better Onboarding – We’ll serve up a template you can give your managers to cover the results of their behavioral assessment with each new hire, making them feel great about their strengths and aware of some the weaknesses they need to minimize to maximize their success in your organization.
—Improved 1-on-1 Sessions - We’ll also provide some great talking tracks your manager can use to incorporate each employee’s behavioral strengths and weaknesses into ongoing coaching sessions. If you are trying to make your performance management system stronger through the use of more frequent 1-on–1’s, you won’t want to miss this.
In addition to these great resources, RJ and my team at FOT will also cover how to research/implement assessments (and avoid getting sued) and sell the concept of leveraging external assessments to the company bigwigs if you're thinking about bringing an assessment into your company.
OK, my over 40 friends, it's call out time. Remember that I'm over 40, so I send this message out of love, not hate.
Some of you are gainfully employed, but tired - I get that. You see an article that suggests you shouldn't have to grind as hard as you do, and you love it and automatically want to share it.
I'm here to tell you that I understand. But I'm also here to tell you that you're acting like a complete fool. It's subtle, but it's fool behavior that's a sucker's play by any stretch of the imagination.
My background on this starts with the title of the article, then what the article said. The sketchy title was as follows - People Over 40 Should Only Work 3 Days a Weekfrom some site called EatWorkGlow (some of the content appears below):
"Recent research by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research found that, whilst working up to 30 hours a week is good for cognitive function in the over 40s, any more than that causes performance to deteriorate.
In fact, those who worked 55 hours a week or more showed worse cognitive impairment than those who were retired or unemployed and didn’t work at all.
The study looked at 3500 women and 3000 men aged 40 and over, and made them complete cognitive function tests whilst their performance at work was monitored.
As most people have to go on working after 40, or even return to work after a break to have a family or for other personal reasons, taking care of your health, maximizing your down time and taking restful holidays becomes more important. Professor McKenzie says that, “Working full time – over 40 hours a week – is still better than no work in terms of maintaining cognitive function, but it is not maximizing the potential effects of work.”
I looked at the entire article a couple of times. Nowhere in the body of the text could I find a statement from the researchers that suggested that People Over 40 Should Only Work 3 Days a Week. That was a clickbait title put together by someone that wanted you to read the article and wanted to maximize social sharing.
You loved it. I know you did because about 15 people in my network shared the article. You ate it up like a kid eats an oreo when he missed lunch. You also took the bait and shared it with the world.
And that's where the problem starts. Here's what you did:
You tried to celebrate the fact that experts believe you're at your best when you work less. You're over 40. You're tired of grinding because let's face it, this whole thing we do is exhausting. You're also gainfully employed if you shared it, because no over 40 person out of work would dare share this title.
You hurt the over 40 crowd that's looking for work when you shared this. No one over 40 AND out of work would share this. Because they already feel like people pass on them for jobs they're qualified for because of age bias. What's that bias based on? There are many angles, but one is definitely the fact that older workers just can't go as long or as hard as their younger comrades.
You hurt a future version of yourself (likely one with less energy than you have today) that will be over 40 or over 50 and looking for a job. Let's face it, you'll have to plan on the fact that you're going to be impacted by a layoff or something similar in the future and be in the job market. When you share a clickbait title that has a research element like People Over 40 Should Only Work 3 Days a Week, you're just making things harder on the version of you that's going to need a break 10 years from now.
Would you love to work 3 days a week now? Yes, but you're gainfully employed.
When you shared that article, you made all the people over 40 and out of work throw up in their mouths. Most of them are concerned about basic things - like providing for their families.
Your comrades over 40 don't give a #### about the number of hours it takes. They just want a great to solid job. You hurt them and the future version of yourself when you share things that imply older workers can't give the same level of effort/grind/hustle as someone under 40.
You're better than that. You're old, but you're not stupid.
There's a lot of talk about AI, robots and algorithms ultimately replacing people in some, if not all, of the jobs we know and love. While I believe that's going to happen (it already has and will continue), there's a couple of myths we can dispel about the displacement of people out of jobs.
Those myths include the following:
The revolution will happen fast and we'll all be out of jobs. I've got good news and bad news. The bad news first - you're all going to be impacted by the move to automation and AI. The good news? This stuff happens in waves, which means that generations have time to retrain and refocus where the jobs are moving to - for people.
The art of managing people will never be lost to automation, because machines and AI can't manage emotions. Actually, the art of managing people will be stripped away gradually in waves, just like everything else. Sorry Mr./Mrs. Manager - you're not special in this regard.
The next frontier for algorithmic management is the traditional service sector, tackling retailers and restaurants.
Percolata is one of the Silicon Valley companies trying to make this happen. The technology business has about 40 retail chains as clients, including Uniqlo and 7-Eleven. It installs sensors in shops that measure the volume and type of customers flowing in and out, combines that with data on the amount of sales per employee, and calculates what it describes as the “true productivity” of a shop worker: a measure it calls “shopper yield”, or sales divided by traffic.
Percolata provides management with a list of employees ranked from lowest to highest by shopper yield. Its algorithm builds profiles on each employee — when do they perform well? When do they perform badly? It learns whether some people do better when paired with certain colleagues, and worse when paired with others. It uses weather, online traffic and other signals to forecast customer footfall in advance. Then it creates a schedule with the optimal mix of workers to maximise sales for every 15-minute slot of the day. Managers press a button and the schedule publishes to employees’ personal smartphones. People with the highest shopper yields are usually given more hours. Some store managers print out the leaderboard and post it in the break room. “It creates this competitive spirit — if I want more hours, I need to step it up a bit,” explains Greg Tanaka, Percolata’s 42-year-old founder.
The company runs “twin study” tests where it takes two very similar stores and only implements the system in one of them. The data so far suggest the algorithm can boost sales by 10-30 per cent, Tanaka says. “What’s ironic is we’re not automating the sales associates’ jobs per se, but we’re automating the manager’s job, and [our algorithm] can actually do it better than them.”
What this snippet shows is that the more data points available, the more current algorithms can replace the need for managers to evaluate performance.
Here's what could be next - it's hard right now to imagine a machine/algorithm providing coaching to the middle range or low performing employee. After all they can't connect emotionally, right?
Of course, what that algorithm could do is provide a coaching script for the manager to follow based on what the data says that's impossible to mess up.
In the past, I've offered up this gold standard for a manager to use when writing performance review items . If an employee is "meeting" expectations in any area of performance, you use this basic formula:
[<Statement +2> + <1 Stretch> = Gold] The Only Formula You Need
That’s it. This formula is all you need when you’re writing any type of written performance- review item. Let’s break down what each part of this formula means:
Starting with Statement +2: Once you've arrived at a rating, you're going to make a statement that describes why you're giving the rating in question. Then, you're going to back up the statement/rating with two specific performance/behavioral examples that you can cite from the review period. The specific examples you give should be representative of the trend you see, and should help you illustrate why someone is at the rating you’re giving and not the next highest point on the rating scale.
After reading what's happening with sales performance in places like 7-Eleven, it's clear that AI and algorithms are cutting into the role of management at companies with access to data.
It's not a big jump to think that those same algorithms and AI could create performance statements via the formula I provided above. At some point, either humans aren't in the jobs or the tech advances to the place where AI can deliver the coaching via that formula to the human talent. After all, you avoided it, right?
That's how it goes, right? One day you love technology because it's making your job easier. The next day the tech advances and suddenly, you're not needed.
Who's to know if your soul will fade at all The one you sold to fool the world You lost your self-esteem along the way Yeah
--"Fake it" by Seether
One of the biggest things that separates contenders from pretenders in Corporate America - across all functional areas - is the ability to fake interest and attention.
You're in a 7-hour training class. Next week you're in a 3 hour ops review. Boredom happens.
If Darwin were a noted OD thought leader in business, he would write that an adaptation that allows some to survive and thrive is the ability to fake interest and attention with body language, eye contact and just enough participation to make it seem like they're engaged.
Does it matter? Competition is fierce. Only if you want to get further than you are now. The real players in corporate America look engaged - at all times - even when they aren't.
Look around at your next meeting. You'll know what I'm talking about. Some people have this type of opposable thumb, some don't.
Of course, faking it leads to learning because you're dialed in juuuuuust enough not to miss important shit.
Seether video below, people. Worth your time but a little NSFW. Happy Friday... (email subscribers click through for video)
It's September. Getting near halfway through the year. Might be time for you to actually give some feedback to the people who work for you. Or, if you're an HR pro, to encourage managers of people to give that feedback to the masses. But we wait. Because the people who most need the feedback don't always take it well. All the training in the world isn't going to help the reality of performance feedback---it would be easy if it weren’t for those pesky employees asking questions, throwing up objections and generally being disagreeable. And that’s one of the biggest rubs in doing performance management/mid-year feedback, isn’t it?
“This session is going to suck because they’re going to ___________ . ”
What do employees who most need your feedback do during performance sessions? If they’re quiet, the session is easy—if somewhat strange. If an employee is quiet, you probably haven’t encouraged them to participate enough or be honest with you. Once you’ve made them comfortable, they’re going to tell you why they can’t give more performance to you, and the reasons will be unique to their personality and performance profile. But some of the objections can be trended, all the way to the point where we can create personas that you should expect to see during your session. The key is to know the people you're talking to, then have a general feel for what your approach is going to be as you walk into the session when you tell them how they are doing for the year. Available starting approaches for you as a manager of people as you walk into a feedback session that's going to be hostile/going to suck:
1. The Flame Thrower - In this approach, you go on the offensive quick since you're dealing with someone who's going to be pretty hostile back to you. This approach is also used because you're dealing with someone who's going to try to bully you, because the only thing they'll understand is brute force. So, you hit them hard early and put the pieces together late. Best used with highly assertive, low-sensitivity employees.
2. The Fraiser Crane - You remember the spin off from Cheers, right? The tagline he used on his radio show based on personal therapy was, "I'm listening," so it stands to reason that's your approach early with the people who need some therapy before you can get to how they're going to improve. Best used with low-assertive, high sensitivity types.
3. The Jester - Some people are wired to love the stage banter, so give these people what they want: lots of small talk about company topics interesting to them. You're basically warming them up to be comfortable, then you're going to transition and have better conversation post-warm up. What do you talk about? Any thing that they have opinions on and build momentum for you to agree, because it's going to be hard for them to come after you after that momentum is built. Best used with employees who are extroverted and high on the people scale. Let them talk, and then try to keep them talking/reacting once you go into feedback mode.
The best stage banter to model yourself after? Paul Stanley from KISS of course (email subscribers click through for video):
4. The Stat Geek - Numbers never lie, and if you're fortunate to have numbers to back up the performance issues you see, you lead with the digits to a certain subsection of your feedback sessions. Be sure to have numbers that clearly define INDIVIDUAL performance with this group and you'll be set. Best used with employees that have high cognitive scores and are low on the team scale (which means you can best ask for more performance by presenting them with a individual scoreboard).
Bottom line: Your one-on-ones or check-ins matter. It's about who they are, not who you are. Play offense early in your session with each employee and you'll have the best shot at success with minimal blowback why you get to what's real.
We love features like self assessments and 360s in our performance solutions. But they're a crutch. Here's why:
Self Assessments - your best people are harder on themselves than you are. Your worst people and even those in between give themselves more credit than they deserve - setting your managers up for something they're not good at - conflict. Meh.
360 Reviews - the more I talk to people using these as part of the review process, the more often I hear that the feedback coming in isn't great. It's either cheerleader type stuff, "Jenn is the best!" or people are very, very cautious in giving negative feedback if they perceive that it will be used directly and more importantly, if the review is tied to pay.
Managers - Do your job and have a take on whether someone is good or great. And stop saying everyone is great - they're not.
HR Pros - I'm not saying you shouldn't use self-assessments or 360s - but you can't let them be a replacement from a manager truly owning whether someone is crushing it or just getting by.
Ben Horowitz - one of the former primaries at Netscape and now a founding partner at the aptly-named Andreessen Horowitz - once wrote a brief paper called, "Good Product Manager, Bad Product Manager". It's become a bible for product managers in the software business and it's worth your time. Find the whole thing by clicking here.
Why is a paper on product management worth your time as an HR pro? Because you could easily substitute "HR Leader" for "Product Manager" and most of it still applies. Some examples:
Good product managers take written positions on important issues (competitive silver bullets, tough architectural choices, tough product decisions, markets to attack or yield).
Bad product managers voice their opinion verbally and lament that the "powers that be" won't let it happen. Once bad product managers fail, they point out that they predicted they would fail.
Good product managers focus the team on revenue and customers.
Bad product managers focus team on how many features Microsoft is building.
Good product managers define good products that can be executed with a strong effort.
Bad product managers define good products that can't be executed or let engineering build whatever they want (i.e. solve the hardest problem).
Good product managers act like and are viewed as the CEO of the product.
Bad product managers see themselves as resources. Just replace "product manager" with "HR Leader".
Go get the whole thing and enjoy. Share with the marketing and technology people you respect most. It will confirm to them that you are one of them.
New series at the Capitalist: The Top 100 Movie Quotes of all time for HR Pros. In no special order, I break down the 100 movie quotes that resonate most for me as a career HR pro. Some will be funny, some will be serious... Some will tug at your heart like when the Fox voice-over guy said, "Tonight - a very special episode of 90210"... You get the vibe... I'll do it countdown-style like they're ranked, but let's face it - they're ALL special..
HR Pros. Always with the politeness thing.
Example - you're interviewing a candidate. The candidate is obviously crazy and not a fit for your company or the position in question. But you're trained you can't end the interview too quickly, which BTW - is a good rule of thumb. Don't listen to anyone that tell you that you can end an interview after 10 minutes - that's a good way to take a lawsuit.
So you plow on in that interview. You do your thing and maybe - just maybe - you try and plant a seed with the candidate about why he's not going to be hired through your line of questioning.
Which brings us to today's quote. Let's say you're talking to a candidate who claims to be a high performer and is talking around an obvious gap in employment. You could take a page from Jared (HBO's Silicon Valley) and rip off the following quote:
Quote #70 is Jared from Silicon Valley: "Are We to Understand That You Did Not Crush It In 2012?'...
Jared would make a great HR pro. Sees the gap and hears the candidate talking and boom - addresses the gap.
Of course, he got a medical/mental condition thrown back at him as a result, but that's just details.
(video clip below, email subscribers click through to view)
In case you missed it yesterday, Apple announced the iPhone 7 and the feature getting the most buzz is - no wired headphones. Why did they do it? Observe the high and mighty talk from Apple courtesy of The Ringer:
"Perhaps because the company’s stealthy public relations team sensed the impending anger of their customer base (which, lol, includes Alan Cumming), Schiller offered an explanation to as to why the company chose to take the dive into über-minimalism.
“Now, some people have asked why we would remove the analog headphone jack from the iPhone,” Schiller began. “It really comes down to one word: courage. The courage to move on, do something new, that betters all of us. And our team has tremendous courage.”
Mmmm-Hmmm. Which made me think that the people who eliminate performance reviews are a lot like Apple at it's worst - when they make decisions for consumers. Let's count the ways:
1. Apple - we had the courage to do this. Anti-Performance Review People - You know reviews suck, we're just brave enough to end it.
2. Apple - if you still want to use the wires, here's a 4 inch dongle that will make you look 70 years old. Anti-Performance Review People - you can totally still do reviews, but we'll be over here being interviewed by Fast Company. We're confident that will work out well for you, do what you're comfortable with (imagine patronizing tone).
3. Apple - we're trusting the consumer to go with us- to the future. Anti-Performance Review People - we're trusting managers to coach on a more frequent basis. You're right - they can't even advise their direct reports on strategic moves by our company without blaming the leadership team, but we're sure their going to battle through the confrontation and coach weekly.
4. Apple - our move to eliminate the headphone jack isn't about money/selling accessories. Anti-Performance Review People - our new process isn't tied to money in any way. We haven't figured out how to do merit increases in the new world order yet, but we're confident we'll have a plan soon.
5. Apple Consumers - we love the new phone! Wait, what am I supposed to do with my wired accessories again? Employees in companies eliminating reviews - Yes! No reviews, I hated those things. Wait, how am I supposed to know how I'm doing vs my peers? My managers going to organically give me that data over time? Huh?
Apple = Anti-Performance Review People
If only there was a big phone dongle the Anti-Performance Review People could hand you when they find out you're still doing reviews.
It's bad when you're on your way to harassment being mentioned in your Annual Report, which the Fox News Parent company will probably end up doing. Why would they have to do that? Because of three things:
--The speed at which they settled a harassment claim that just surfaced a month ago...
--The size of the settlement - 20M
--The fact that tens, if not hundreds of similar cases are gong to flow against Fox News in the next 12 months, which will look like a write down to a large class action lawsuit.
Why do we know this is true? Fox News settled with former Fox and Friends anchor/host Gretchen Carlson in response to a lawsuit filed just a month ago. The setup from the LA Times:
"Fox News parent 21st Century Fox moved decisively Tuesday to end the sexual harassment scandal that has roiled the media company, issuing an extraordinary apology to former anchor Gretchen Carlson and agreeing to pay $20 million to settle her lawsuit against her former boss, Roger Ailes.
“We sincerely regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was not treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve,” the company’s statement said.
The unusually candid expression of regret over Ailes’ alleged actions demonstrates how much Fox wants the controversy to go away. Coming in the midst of a presidential election, the scandal had raised questions about the future leadership of a network that has long dominated cable TV news ratings."
Translation - the guy was a freak show and if we don't go to 20M, the probability of 60M is too high to deal with. Do the deal.
But the dirty little detail behind this settlement is that it's far from over. There are multiple other suits pending and let's face it, when you apologize for leader conduct and a lack of respect and dignity, you're not really going to have an appetite to fight any of those claims.
And there will be more claims. Most, if not all of them, will be legit. Fox News will pay.
It's a form of closure for something that was institutionalized. They'll pay without fighting, because things where so ####ed up. There will be a time, probably around the one year mark, when that will change and Fox will start fighting claims.
For now, they'll do a little due process on each claim and then write a check in accordance with the indignity and the size of the person's career.
It's what you do when you look up and find that your leader was a freak. That has a funny way of rolling downhill to the rest of the company.