HR Words That Mean Absoutely Nothing....

You know the words.  The ad copy for a HR or staffing firm meant to provide the sizzle, framing the fact that the firm in question IS Human Capital or Talent:

From Michael Habermann at HR Observations, who got this pitch in the mail:

"Superior talent matches for a customer's temporary, temporary-to-permanent and permanent job opportunities through a unique, team-based solution."

Ugh....I could accurately sketch the predictable clip art that invariably accompanies the words.  It looks like the picture on the right.  The picture is too perfect, and about 1,000 companies have it on their brochure...

How about this - "Pretty good people, fast.  Try before you buy..."

Be like Darrin from Bewitched (he worked for an ad agency) and give me your pitch for a tagline in the comments...

When People Say HR Stinks, It's Simple...Don't Stink...

If you're a HR blogger, you probably got the news early today from a PR type -the HR haters are out again, via a whitepaper called The Role of HR in the Age of Talent (based on research by Vurv and Human Capital Institute). 

More news that says HR isn't cutting it in the business world.  What else is new?  For a summary of what it says, I roll with Ann Bares of Compensation Force:

"This is a report that every one of us in the profession should read.  The news is not necessarily good.  It tells us that while talent management has become a top level concern for organizational leaders and boards, the HR profession has not yet made the necessary strides - in business acumen, prestige and influence - to earn the right to own this concern.  In the words of the study: "... its almost as if corporate leaders have made a collective, unconscious decision that talent management is too important to be left to HR."

I'm sure the study contains all the normal hand-wringing buzzwords, including Strategy, a Seat at the Table and not to be forgotten, Change Management.  The study probably says HR's not meeting the expectations in any of them.  Got it...

The answer?  Don't be angry - be different.  Be remarkable.  Every time you hear a study like this one, start a value added project and deliver the goods.  Make people say, "you're different from other HR people I've met"...

Let's stop wringing our hands and start acting like we belong.  Please.  Every time you comment on a story like this one, you guarantee five similar studies/articles will come along in the next year.

So, be different - don't comment, don't lash out.   Put your energy into cramming the stereotype down the world's throat by being a different type of HR pro.

Real World Stats - Cover Letters and Thank You Notes...

It's a digital world and, as a result, many candidates have forgotten all of their analog/1.0 skills.  Case in point - we are searching for an HR Coordinator to handle a good bit of the transactional load for our department, and I'd estimate that less than 15% of the 150-200 candidates who applied took the time to provide a cover letter when they submitted their resume.

This for a position with "HR" in the title?  What's the percentage for engineering positions?  5%?  1%?

Here's a better stat.  We interviewed six finalists from the pack of 200 applicants, and by my count, 4 provided a cover letter, one had a connection and called when applying, and one provided no cover letter.  Is it possible only the best candidates provide cover letters?  Or when we see a cover letter for a position requiring soft skills that naturally helps the candidate get to the next step?

I'd like to think so...

Others agree with the trend, and how it's easier than ever to differentiate yourself from the crowd as a result.  From Dennis Smith at The Fordyce Letter:

"Honestly, it’s intriguing. And really, I’m just curious…since when did “the experts” stop telling candidates to send thank you notes? Sure, I say that jokingly, because, even though I’ve only been at this for 12 years, it’s pretty much been like that since I joined the recruiting ranks. The Career Coaches instruct the job-seekers to follow-up with a well-written thank-you card, and, once-in-a-blue-moon somebody will walk the road less traveled and do something that blows me away.

In this case, the candidate followed up with an email within an hour of the interview, saying that she’d be delivering an appropriate thank-you. Sure enough, the next day she stops in the office with the likes of a thank-you card that, honestly, is likely the most well-written and appropriate card I’ve ever received.

Nicely done."

Here's a ray of hope from our search and the six candidates in question.  2-3 days after live interviews, 4 of the 6 candidates provided an email thank you note. 

One provided a written note as well, although it wasn't hand delivered.

We'll see who gets the job...

Should You Ditch the Second Interview and Have Candidates Work a Half Day For You?

If you've hired enough, you've felt the pain of what I call "missing".  You did everything you should have done in the hiring process, got feedback from others so you didn't make a hiring call in a bubble, ran the behavioral interview and probed.

Nice job.  So why did that new hire turn out to be a dud?

It's nothing personal.  Anyone who says they never miss has either only hired 1-4 people or is lying. Everyone misses.

So what can you do to reduce the number of times you miss?  You can make sure your interview attempts to measure what's important in the job, provide a realistic job preview, get more people involved, etc.

You could also have them do a live exercise with you to see how they react to real world conditions.  You could even have them work a full day for you in the role they'll perform before you make an offer.   

Is that possible?  Seth Godin thinks it is:

"There are no one-on-one-sit-in-my-office-and-let’s-talk interviews. Boom, you just saved 7 hours per interview. Instead, spend those seven hours actually doing the work. Put the person on a team and have a brainstorming session, or design a widget or make some espressos together. If you want to hire a copywriter, do some copywriting. Send back some edits and see how they’re received.

If the person is really great, hire them. For a weekend. Pay them to spend another 20 hours pushing their way through something. Get them involved with the people they’ll actually be working with and find out how it goes. Not just the outcomes, but the process. Does their behavior and insight change the game for the better? If they want to be in sales, go on a sales call with them. Not a trial run, but a real one. If they want to be a rabbi, have them give a sermon or visit a hospital."

Target practice with live ammo - I like it.  I've always included some type of inbox with a lot of the positions I've filled on my team.  Seth's thoughts take it to the next level.  Not role play, but live action.

To get there, you need to get yourself, your team and the candidate to understand that the work included in the process is a contracting/consulting opportunity.  For a 60K job, one day's work equates into about $250 in cost.  About the cost of a posting on Monster....

That seems cheap for what you get in return.

Headphones at Work - The Mark of the Individual Contributor...

Cheap observation from the workplace this week - Headphones are generally for individual contributors, and maybe even for those who want to remain individual contributors for the foreseeable future.

First up - I'm not anti-headphones or a member of the headphone Nazi party.  I get it - people can get into a groove with certain types of jobs (creative, transactional, etc.) with the vibe that music provides.  That's cool and I'm all for it.  I also get that headphones are often an attractive option for dealing with the noise intrusion that comes with living in a cube environment.

But here's the reality that goes along with headphones in the workplace:

1) Most managers I know don't use them.  Managers can't afford to not be aware of their surroundings and be approachable.  Managers take calls and walk-ins from other managers, external partners and their superiors who put them in the job in the first place.  More importantly, managers are expected to be available for the teams they lead.  Nothing says, "I'm not approachable" more than a manager wearing headphones. 

Well, maybe a closed door all the time says that to a greater extent.  But you get my point.

2) Employees who want to be upwardly mobile into the manager ranks typically don't take a lot of headphone time.  The type of employee who migrates into a managerial role is naturally available.  They thrive on the walk-in traffic and a service orientation to those who approach them.  For that reason, they usually don't wear headphones a lot.  The resulting service and approachability contribute to the organizational logic that they're good candidates to manage people.

So, if you are wearing headphones and are productive - ROCK ON.   It's all good and whatever makes you productive is a good thing.

Just be aware of what that says about your desire to lead teams if you have them on for 5-6 hours a day....

I'm just sayin'.....

Here Are Our Candidates for an Open HR Coordinator Spot - Who Would You Pick?

We're filling a HR Coordinator spot on our team to handle a good bit of the transactional load for the department.  Interesting selection, we really didn't have anyone in our networks, so of course we posted it to all the normal boards - Monster, local SHRM organization.

As a result, we got hit with 150-200 applicants.  It's a direct report to my HR Manager, so he's moved through the process.  We were down to six final candidates this week.  All are great candidates, now we just have to pick the best one...

Take a look at the profiles below and tell me who you would pick.  What's that?  You need to know more about the actual job?  You are such a pro - find the job description here. 

Here are the candidates - tell me who you would plug into the role:

-Candidate #1 - Banking Industry, mixture of coordinator type role and recruiting experience.  Great communication skills. 5 years experience...

-Candidate #2 - Mixture of industry experience, mixture of coordinator type role and recruiting experience.  A little more of an introvert than candidate #1.

-Candidate #3 - Current HR Manager, tough environment that includes recruiting, employee relations, etc.  Looking to get plugged into a broader HR community than she has access to now, willing to take a lateral move or half step back from a responsibility perspective to get that access. 4 years experience...

-Candidate #4 - New college grad.  All the behavioral markers are off the chart, but no experience...

-Candidate #5 - Currently in a coordinator role, has two years experience doing what they would do in our role. Good candidate, kind of on the shy side.

-Candidate #6 -  Banking Industry, mixture of coordinator type role and recruiting experience.  Great communication skills. 5 years experience...

OK - I know that's limited information, but based on the job description and profiles, who would you pick and why?  Hit me in the comments to let me know who you would choose....

Sometimes the Right Choice Is to Fire the Manager...

As a topic, firing a manager has easy scenarios and hard scenarios.  Just so we can be clear what we are talking about, let's first talk about all the times when it MIGHT be an easy call to fire a manager:

1.  When the manager is abusive to their team and is a walking liability;

2.  When the manager has had tons of ramp up time, but still doesn't understand the business and therefore can't generate the expected level of business results; or

3.  When the sales/stats aren't there over time, and you've done everything you can to allow them to address the performance issues for their function as a whole.

Are there other scenarios that make it an easy call?  I'm sure.  Is every situation different and, at times, more complex than these simple scenarios?  Absolutely...

Here's the harder scenario.  When do you make a call to remove a manager who has had great results in the past, but might be struggling recently to meet the bar/expectations they have created for themselves?

Case in point - in pro basketball, Avery Johnson of the Dallas Mavericks was fired after a first round loss in the 2008 playoffs.  A respected former player, Johnson actually took Dallas to the NBA Finals in 2006, had the league's best record in 2007 (but had a first round playoff loss that year), then worked to make the playoffs in a loaded Western Conference in 2008 before exiting in the first round again.

So Avery was successful, but got cut loose because he wasn't successful enough.  When is it the right time to cut loose a successful manager who has struggled recently?  Here's my working list:

1.  When the manager in question has a distinctive style that, over time, employees tune out.  I'm thinking the Bobby Knights of the business world.  The screamers, the object throwers, etc.  The intensity seems to work for awhile, but if that's all there is, employees ultimately get burned out over time.

2.  If business conditions change, but the manager's not flexible enough to change his focus.  In this scenario, the manager has lots of success early on with specific tactics, but then conditions change and new tactics are called for.  The manager had success with the old tactics, so he/she keeps using those and refuses to adapt.

3.  If the organization invests in a talent upgrade, but the manager can't motivate top tier talent to get to the next level.  In this scenario, the manager had great success with lower level talent.  To take the organization to the next level, the company provides a talent upgrade, but the results stay the same.   

4.  If the manager ceases to be motivated by the current opportunity.  Over time, interest in the current role can fade, even for a professional manager with a great track record.  Sometimes change is the best thing for everyone.

I think there are a variety of scenarios when a change is the best thing for a manager and a company alike.  To keep things fresh and have a long term career with a single company in today's world, managers have to stay alert and reinvent themselves every 2-3 years - to show value to the company, but also to keep the current opportunity fresh from their own perspective.

And that's easy to say, hard to do.

When "The Sopranos" Force an Employee To Sign a Union Card...

Just to be clear before I start this post, this isn't a political site.  It's a "HR/Human Capital meets the business world" type of site.  Remember that as the post starts below.

There's this little thing on the horizon called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  Most pundits (Republican and Democrat alike) agree that if the Democrats take the White House, the act will pass both the House and the Senate - because it won't face a presidential veto.

If that happens, your life as a HR pro changes.  Once the EFCA is law, employees would no longer have the right to a confidential vote on whether they want to be represented by a union or not.  If you know how organizing works, you know that today employees express their interest in having a vote by signing what's known as an authorization card.  Once the union gets the necessary number of cards (30% of employees, but most unions shoot for 50% because that's what they need to win the resulting election), an election is called and employees then get the luxury of both unions and employers campaigning for their vote.  Then they vote via a confidential ballot, much like your presidential vote.

Even if an employee signs the card, they can vote the other way in the union election.  Many change their vote in the election because that's how they really feel.  Many sign the card because they don't want to be hassled/harassed/intimidated in the workplace.

If the EFCA passes, there's no vote.   Once the necessary number of cards are signed, the union's in.  No confidential election (like the one you get to elect the president), just a bunch of people coming up to you and asking you to sign a card.

And that's wrong.  That's not America. 

Here's the problem with that.  If the EFCA passes, Unions get authorized based on peer pressure.  Imagine a group of employees coming up to your work station/cube/desk/whatever and putting a card down and saying "you're with us, right?".. If you refuse, maybe the group starts to smear you in the workplace, maybe they start calling you at all hours of the night, etc.  Any type of pressure to get you to sign the card.  Your vote is public, and you're subject to harassment, not unlike the video below. 

Hat tip to Seth Borden of the Union-Free Employer for the video...Regardless of your political views, educate yourself on this bill and make your feelings known as a HR Pro to your representative/senator, etc...

Tribune Company Rescinds $100/month Penalty For Smokers, Keeps Spousal Carve Out...

I've talked a lot in the past about the future of wellness programs, medical costs and the potential for incentives/penalties related to living a healthy lifestyle.   While this area is rife with complexities, the cost trend of medical care seems to make it inevitable that companies will eventually reward those leading healthy lifestyles.

With that said, companies naturally migrate the lowest hanging fruit when approaching any issue.  In the area of wellness incentives/penalties, the low hanging fruit is smoking.  While family history and genetics are at play in areas like blood pressure and cholesterol, smoking is seen as a voluntary choice.  As a result, many companies are charging higher medical premiums for smokers, or refusing to employ them.

There hasn't been a highly visible company that had started penalties to smokers - until now.  LA Observed and John Hollon both recently highlighted that the Tribune Company, which started charging smokers an extra $100 per month in medical premiums on 1/1/08, reversed course in April and is refunding the charges to smokers.  Here's the Tribune memo to employees as reported from LA Observed (with a hat tip to John Hollon):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tribune Communications
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Message from Gerry Spector/Tobacco Use Fee Rescinded

Since the closing of the going-private transaction last December, we’ve been reviewing policies and practices across the company, including Tribune’s healthcare benefits. While well-intentioned, we think the tobacco-use fee implemented by the previous management team is inconsistent with the new culture we’re developing---we’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you.

This policy was a part of open enrollment last fall and took effect January 1, 2008. I’m pleased to tell you that we’re eliminating this fee effective April 28th.

If you successfully participated in the smoking cessation program, have quit and been reimbursed for all fees, then congratulations are in order. Quitting is one of the hardest things you’ll ever do.

If you’re still being charged the fee, it will stop and Tribune will reimburse you 100 percent for the fees you have paid. This reimbursement will occur in late May.

Tribune will continue to offer the smoking cessation program free of charge to all employees and their covered dependents age 18 and older.

The spousal medical fee, implemented at the same time, will remain in place. We believe that if an employee’s spouse has access to coverage through his/her employer, that employer has the primary responsibility to bear the cost of coverage. Our obligation is to take care of our own employees, first and foremost.

If you have questions about the tobacco use fee, contact the Tribune Benefits Service Center at XXX/XXX-XXXX (sic - phone number changed for publication)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting move.  Not sure it will be the norm with smoking...

Are Frontline Employees Fully Expendable? Isn't the "Same" really "Lame"?

If you've ever worked in a retail or consumer call center situation, odds are you've seen some employee turnover.  Depending on pay levels, the specific industry, and local economic conditions, it's not unusual to see annualized turnover at 100% in those sectors.

As HR Pros, we're conditioned that high turnover is never acceptable.  Most of us take it personally.

Is it possible, depending on the conditions you face (pay levels, industry and the local ecomomy), that you shouldn't take high turnover as a personal challenge as a HR Pro?  Additionally, if you don't invest much in the upfront training of those associates, have you made a business decision that high turnover is OK?

More on the value of high entry-level turnover from the Workforce Institute:

"Unless your Unique Selling Proposition (USP) or point of difference is Exceptional Customer Service (like Nordstrom, BMW, Ritz Carlton, and the Container Store), there’s no reason to sweat it when you lose frontline employees. Most likely, they were not that good anyway because, truth be told, you haven’t invested a lot of money in your hourly hires and even the training you provided, if any, didn’t cost much. In fact, their replacements will probably be just as good and may be even better than those you lose. New employees are excited about their new jobs and will probably have a better attitude and try harder - at least for the first three-to-six months. On top of this, employee turnover will probably reduce your labor costs because you won’t have to fund any benefit programs for a while. And there’s no need to worry if the new hire doesn’t know very much because the customers don’t expect them to know much when customer service is not your USP. You may even want to have new people wear a button that says: “I’m new. Please help me help you.”

It's an interesting take, and hard to deny the investment piece.  If you don't invest much in service-oriented new hires, have you already made your choice from business perspective.  Should you be pointing that out as an HR Pro?

Still, it's hard as a consumer, who is also an HR Pro, to let go of the fact that exceptional service is important.  Thoughts?  Should business be giving up on entry-level turnover, or should they be fighting to be memorable?

I guess it depends on the business plan - and how you plan to make money...

DNA Discrimination Bill set to go into Law.... Good News and Bad News...

People learning, through genetic testing, that they might be susceptible to devastating diseases wouldn't also have to worry about losing their jobs or their health insurance, under anti-discrimination legislation the Senate passed Thursday.

The 95-0 Senate vote sends the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act back to the House, which could approve it early next week. President Bush supports the legislation.  The measure bars insurers from denying health coverage or charging higher premiums based on a person's genetic information. Also, it bars employers from using genetic information to make hiring, firing, and other job-related decisions. The measure applies only to people who have a genetic makeup that carries the risk of a disease. It does not cover people who already have the disease.

As with everything, there's good news and bad news

First, the good news.  The law provides protection, which should encourage more people to be tested for a variety of things earlier, which allows people to change behaviors and seek treatment earlier.  That's a good thing, as the prognosis for almost every condition improves if people have the information they need to make better choices.

Now the bad news.  The legislation offers no protection for those who already have a disease.  Seems a little unfair if you're already battling something.  Additionally, I think this will limit the potential effectiveness of wellness initiatives down the road.

Not following me on why this may hamper wellness initiatives?  When trying to motivate people to live healthier lifestyles, companies usually focus on the following measurements as a basis for how healthy a person is:

1.  Blood Pressure
2.  Body Mass Index (BMI)
3.  Blood Sugar/Glucose
4.  Cholesterol
5.  Resting Heart Rate

With that in mind, how many of these factors do you think might ultimately prove to have genetic predisposition based on your family history?  4 out of 5?

These are the measurements that any wellness incentive program would hold employees accountable by.  Whether you use the carrot (rebates on employee contributions for good scores) or the stick (charging employees with poor scores and no efforts to improve), the DNA bill will likely ultimately limit your ability to economically motivate your employees to live healthier lifestyles.

If I have high blood pressure and there's a test that shows I am genetically predisposed to that condition, you won't be able to use the carrot or the stick.  It would likely be discriminatory under the law.

Even if the employee is eating 4 Grand Slams at Denny's a day.   File it under the Law of Unintended Consequences...

HR Jobs From Hell - The LOA Administrator

By now, readers of the Capitalist know that I am a HR Generalist, meaning 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.

One of the things that is cool about being a HR Generalist is the variety - if you're sick of doing one thing, you just need to wait about 20 minutes, because you'll get a call shifting your priorities to another area as a routine course of business.

Some people call it chaos, I call it variety...

So, for me, a HR job from hell is one that includes no variety, and resides in an area of the HR practice where little joy is found.  Here's my first HR Job from Hell - the corporate Leave of Absence Administrator.

First up, let me say that me tagging the LOA Administrator as a job from hell has nothing to do with the people in the job, but instead has everything to do with what these folks have to put up with on a daily basis.  As luck would have it, HR Wench is currently in the job market, and recently phone screened for an LOA Administrator role:

"I had a phone screen yesterday that went ok. It was for the Leave of Absence Specialist. Get this: the organization has 15,000 employees. Guess how many NEW leave of absence cases were processed last year? 4,400. That is almost a 1/3 of their workforce, yo! Geez. Anyhow the in person interviews aren't until a few weeks from now due to vacations. So, we'll see".

UGH.  That pretty much sums up why I would consider the LOA Administer role as a HR role from Dante's 9th circle.  Here's what you have to deal with in that role:

-Primary focus is interacting with folks going through very rough times.  For the right person, this would be a plus, as they could use their empathy to make a difference.  But a steady diet of this over years surely leads to burnout.

-Being the tough gal/guy regarding compliance.  Folks are going through rough times, and you're the one that has to hassle them about the FMLA certification forms even though that's the last thing on their mind.

-Deciding when to play hardball on fraud.  You have 4,000 applications for LOA, you're going to have some folks gaming the system.  You have to decide when to play hardball and go after it.  You see the 5-10% that game the system - how can you not become jaded after a year or two of that?

Let me be clear - if you are in the LOA Administrator role in your company - thank you.   You are taking multiple hits daily for the HR function as a whole, and you're likely doing it very well.  If you get burned out, I hope your company has a rotational program in place, because you have skills that are a valuable resource.

That being said - HR Wench - Don't do it!!

Will You Eventually Have a Heath Care Score Similar to Your Credit Score?....

Imagine a Health Care system that functioned like the consumer credit industry.  Scott Kornhauser has.  The CEO of Healthation thinks the system will ultimately deliver a personal health care score (like a credit FICO score) that drives what consumers pay for healthcare, complete with the ability to improve rtheir rating over time with the right behaviors/performance. 

That tidbit was part of the vision Kornhauser delivered in "Processing the New Business of Health Care in a Retail Marketplace" at the World Heath Care Congress.  Kornhauser's bigger vision is that the retail transformation of the U.S. health care delivery system is going to demand real time claims adjudication.  To make real time claims adjudication a reality, Kornhauser sees a combination of indexes and other data points coming together to make the real time claims process work.

What the heck does that mean to a HR Pro?

In Kornhauser's vision, consumers will have the ability to opt in or out of sharing their data with various types of providers.  However, to get the best health care credit score possible, they would have to share a great deal of data and then have their overall health judged - via a numerical score that looks a lot like the FICO score that drives your personal access to credit.

Ready to tell Danny in Accounts Payable he has a health care credit score of 500 and will have to pay double what others do for healthcare?

Great!

Have a bad health care FICO score like Danny?  In Kornhauser's world, you'd probably pay more for medical premiums.  But like the credit FICO score, you could improve your health care credit score by demonstrating desired behaviors - like paying your bills on time (easy for Danny, right?) or losing weight to get your BMI score within an acceptable range (harder for Danny...).

Employees Who Play "Grand Theft Auto" - Good or Bad Thing?

We've been watching the NBA playoffs over the past couple of days, and here's the challenge.  It's PRIME TIME, and when the games go to commercial, my 7 and 4 year-old sons get exposed to programming clips and ads the networks view as acceptable at 7pm.

Case in point - On the video game front, Grand Theft Auto 4 is set to be released, featuring all the vices  you can name, set to a drug running culture where shooting cops is an afterthought.  Here's a taste of what the game entails from the London Free Press:

"Grand Theft Auto IV -- or simply GTA IV -- tells the story of Niko Bellic, a recent immigrant to the U.S. from an unrevealed Eastern European country. He's come to Liberty City, the game's through-the-looking-glass version of New York, lured by his cousin Roman's promises of wealth and opportunity.

Niko soon realizes his cousin has twisted the truth like a stoolie's arm: Roman lives in a fleabag apartment, runs a failing taxi company and is in trouble with several shady people. He's summoned Niko, an ex-soldier and all-around capable character, to help extract him from some sticky situations.

So begins Niko's pursuit of the American dream, a chase that will follow the Grand Theft Auto template of having players undertake dozens upon dozens of missions to advance the core storyline, while also pursuing any number of sideline activities, like going to the bar, playing darts and driving home drunk."

Of course, if I can't change the channel quick enough (where is the @#@* remote!?), my 7 year old ultimately see the shoulder fired missile going at the police chopper and asks if we can get that game for our Xbox.  Nice.

Here's a bigger question - are employees who band together at night via networked groups on the Xbox or Playstaion to play "shooter games" good things or bad things for your business? 

On the minus side - your employees are exposed to a steady range of violence via the normal shooter games like "Call of Duty".  Add drugs and poor treatment of women to the mix for games like Grand Theft Auto.  Is there a carry-over of aggression to the workplace?  I can't say that I see it, and it's not like we have the ability to stop what's going on in society.

But here's the big plus side - for every group of 5-10 employees you have that band together at night to save the war (or Niko), you get built-in teamwork.  That group is getting together after work, and doing team-based activities that require cooperation, leadership, accountability to the team and more - they're just exploding things while they do it.

That's got to be good for retention, right?

I think the group gamers are a good thing for your company.  It's also an area that's full of opportunity from a recruiting standpoint for those willing to step outside the box - what better way to recruit the gamer generation than to invite them to join the "Call of Duty" team for an evening of fun?

Of course, you would have to accept that your recruits are going to be exposed to cursing, violence and overall aggressive behavior. 

And that will keep most of us from capturing the promise - we can't accept the liability that goes along with it from a HR standpoint.... 

Steve Roesler - Performance Management and Change Truthteller....

Have you seen the work of Steve Roesler at All Things Workplace?  If not, you need to check it out.

Here's the 3-second elevator speech on what Steve does in his practice:  He specializes in communication training and development with an emphasis on improving systems, relationships, and large-scale change.

He's also a deep thinker about the elements of his practice, which is reflected in his blog.  It's a must read for me, even if Steve goes deeper into his niche than I feel like I have time for on certain days.

Of course, that's not his problem, that's mine...

The reason I read it is because he's good.  Case in point, this post reminding me that if you try and spare someone's feelings from a performance perspective, you may be hurting the long-term viability of their career.  Read the whole post here, and here's a clip:

"There is an admirable and desirable human tendency to not want to hurt other people. Thankfully.

At the same time, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is hurtful and what is helpful. Wouldn't you think that a career filled with performance appraisals  might have surfaced this earlier?

Let's face it: in addition to not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, we also don't want to be seen as ogres. So we often hold back the part of the information that is the most serious and, therefore, potentially the most helpful.

Ask yourself this: Who in your life do you trust the most? The people who give you mostly 'yeses' or the people who say 'no' and then explain why?"

Read the whole thing.  If I ever need an executive coach (does that mean I have to be an executive first?), I'm asking my company to call Steve.

Steve - thanks for the great work and the reminder.  I'm skilled enough to deliver this type of news with directness and compassion.  Thanks for reminding me that's my responsibility....