Is America Being Outworked by...(gasp) Switzerland??

We're heading into Labor Day weekend in the US, so what better time than now for a little pants-adjusting, back-slapping, "damn we work hard in the States" rhetoric?  After all, no one works harder for the money (apologies to Donna Summer) than the average American worker, right?

Except when we don't.  Fortune's Geoff Colvin recently explored a recent UN report analyzing working hours across the globe.  Don't waive it off automatically just because it's from the UN.  Take a look at following data from the report that suggests we are most definitely chilling:

"The surprising report of our relative sloth arrives in new research from the UN's International Labor Organization, which looks at working hours around the world. When it comes to what we might call hard work, meaning the proportion of workers who put in more than 48 hours a week, America is near the bottom of the heap. About 18% of our employed people work that much.

That's a higher proportion than in a few other developed countries like Norway, the Netherlands, and even Japan. But it's actually lower than in Switzerland and Britain, and way lower than in developing countries like Mexico and Thailand. It's drastically lower than in what may be the world's two hardest-working countries, South Korea and Peru, where the proportions are about 50%.

Put it all together, and the researchers figure we're getting about 117 hours of leisure per week (including sleep), vs. 110 hours in 1965. That's more than 360 additional idle hours per year. We are a couch-potato nation."

After reading that, your thoughts are probably similar to mine.  We've earned more leisure time because our productivity has never been higher.  Capital investments in technology to generate gains in productivity have paid off, and as a result our country can back off the grind a little bit.  That's a good thing, right?

For now, yes.  For the future - maybe not.  One of the wacky things about this digital world is that US workers increasingly compete with workers from other countries for opportunities.  That trend isn't just about NAFTA - it's increasingly about every segment of the workforce, especially those sectors that revolve around knowledge:

"The problem isn't what has happened, unless you figure we've just explained the obesity epidemic, but rather what might happen next. Every day more of us work in a global labor market, competing for jobs with people around the world. One thing markets do really well is fix disequilibriums; when anything tradable sells for different prices in different places, those differences soon disappear.

More important, in the growing number of jobs not paid by the hour, people who work harder may just produce better results. General Electric chief Jeff Immelt put it bluntly while recalling a trip to Beijing last year, when he got a big order from the Transport Ministry: "The whole ministry was working all day on a Sunday. I believe in quality of life, work-life balance, all that stuff. But that's the competition. So unless we're willing to compete ..."

So enjoy the BBQ, watch some college football and if you don't have cable, there's always the Jerry Lewis telethon (great cause, but growing up I knew the 3 channels we had were going into lockdown mode at 5pm on Sunday of Labor Day Weekend - drat!!). 

While you're at it, think about the best way to prepare your kids for pitching business to someone in Asia at 2am as a normal course of business. 

Somewhere patriot George Patton is rolling in his grave.... Switzerland!!

Press '1' To Eliminate Yourself As a Candidate...

First up, I'm a Gen X'er, so don't tell me I don't understand because I am too old... Is being in your 30's too old now?

Why do seemingly quality candidates insist on leaving inappropriate greetings on their voice mail?  Do they understand recruiters like me might call their number and get voice mail?

I've been known to be hard on voice mail.  If I am calling a candidate off a resume and get voice mail, I treat it like a freebie.  Good energy and kind of dynamic sounding in your voice mail greeting?  Cool, I'm more interested than I was when I called.  Sound depressed and seem like the whole thing takes too much energy?  I'm out - you lost the opportunity.  I rate your voice mail - if you are rated 5 or worse, you'll never hear from KD again..

Just called a strong candidate back after a phone interview to set up a face-to-face session.  Hadn't gotten her voice mail yet in the process.  Got it this time - BAM!!!  I'm treated to 30 seconds of a profane Notorious B.I.G track before the innocent, professional voice I was expecting comes through over the track during the chorus.  Professional position, 50-60K job.  Bye-Bye...

It'd be the same deal whether it was Marilyn Manson or Larry the Cable Guy.  Market to me, the recruiter.  Don't take risky chances with your brand when I call. 

The HR Blog Power Rankings [sponsored by the HR Capitalist]

The HR Capitalist is proud to announce the first installation of the HR Blog Power Rankings!  Rankings below reflect blog entries from July 30th to August 29th across 103 HR-related blogs.  How do we rank them?  Check out the complete Poll Methodology here...

The short version of our methodology is that I have my Google Reader set up to read all 103 blogs for the period in question.  Using the star feature, I identify the entries I would recommend to my HR colleagues.  The more recommendations, the higher the power ranking and the poll position. 

In our opinion, the top 25 and those also receiving votes represent the best of the HR/Human Capital Blogs.  Thanks to all listed here for your committment to HR/Human Capital community!

Ranking/Blog Name (Power Rating, Last Poll Ranking)

1.  Compensation Force (Power Rating- 7, Last Poll - Not Ranked - NR)
2.  systematicHR (Power Rating - 5, Last Poll - NR)
3.  Pennsylvania Employment Lawyer & Attorney (Power Rating - 5, Last Poll - NR)
4.  HR Thoughts (Power Rating - 4, Last Poll - NR)
5.  8 hours & a lunch (Power Rating - 4, Last Poll - NR)
6.  The Business of Management - John Hollon (Power Rating - 4, Last Poll - NR) 7.  Three Star Leadership - Wally Bock (Power Rating - 4, Last Poll - NR) 8.  Ask a Manager (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
9.  Fortify Your Oasis (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
10. The Human Capitalist (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
11. Evil HR Lady (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
12. Employee Evolution (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
13. The Career Revolution (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
14. Jon Ingham's (HCM) Blog (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
15. Jim Stroud 2.0 (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
16. KnowHR Blog (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
17. Taleo Blog (Power Rating - 3, Last Poll - NR)
18. The Performance & Talent Management Blog (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
19. Incentive Intelligence (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
20. Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
21. XpertHR > Homepage (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
22. McArthur's Rant  (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
23. All Things Workplace (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
24. Trizle (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
25. (Tie) The Work Clinic (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)
25. (Tie) Knowledge Infuser (Power Rating - 2, Last Poll - NR)

Also Receiving Votes: The Future of Work Weblog, Evil HRIS Guy, People Signals, SittingXLegged, Employee Handbooks, cheezehead, Race in the Workplace, Michael Specht, Stanley Bing, Bob Sutton, Complete Potential, Workstream, Execupundit, Gruntled Employees, Donald H Taylor

On Probation/Not Eligible For Poll - The HR Capitalist (Please Read Anyway!!!)

In future polls, I'll highlight posts that make ranked blogs special.  For now, here's a tagline for why these blogs are the best for HR Pros....

1.  Compensation Force - Comp info that's easy, accessible and get this - topical!
2.  systematicHR - I don't always understand Dubs.  But when I do, it works...
3.  Pennsylvania Employment Lawyer & Attorney - Michael Moore (not that one) making employment law fun again...
4.  HR Thoughts - Lisa details her trials and tribulations in a represented environment - what's not to like?
5.  8 hours & a lunch - Deb weaves HR, Tony Robins and Literature - Can't get that anywhere else...
6.  The Business of Management - John Hollon - John writes on all things organizational with just the right amount of distance from the fray... 7.  Three Star Leadership - Wally Bock - Is Wally always serious?  Yes - and so is the content... 8.  Ask a Manager - Unidentified manager reading what her employee's think of her via their own blogs...Nice!
9.  Fortify Your Oasis - Human Capital and OD with an Irish twist...
10. The Human Capitalist - Systems will run it all one day, so we may as well keep up with the trends...
11. Evil HR Lady - Voted most cynical blogger in recent fictional poll....
12. Employee Evolution - Will Gen Y show up tommorrow?  Read this to find out...
13. The Career Revolution - Recruiting and HR with lots of Seinfeld clips... Constanza!!!
14. Jon Ingham's (HCM) Blog - Emerging blog with good energy and observations...Avatars included...
15. Jim Stroud 2.0 - Top recruiting blog in my eyes.  News you can use if you recruit as a HR pro...
16. KnowHR Blog - Another solid HCM blog weaving current events with HCM theory...
17. Taleo Blog - Great blog for macro workforce trends and what they mean to you...
18. The Performance & Talent Management Blog - Light post volume, but quality when they happen...
19. Incentive Intelligence - Best in class Rewards and Recognition blog with a little psychology thrown in...
20. Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer - You'll be sued this year - read this to find out why...
21. XpertHR > Homepage - Good trends from the world of British HR...
22. McArthur's Rant - Part HR and part science - always entertaining...
23. All Things Workplace - Executive coach and development goods when you are in the mood...
24. Trizle - Cool weblog at the intersection of business and people...
25. (Tie) The Work Clinic - Natalie Cooper working hard to report on workplace trends...
25. (Tie) Knowledge Infuser - New blog from cool HRMS consultancy tracking intersection of technology and talent management... Next poll is up late the week of 9/10....

Methodology - The HR Blog Power Rankings [sponsored by the HR Capitalist]

Methodology for "The HR Blog Power Poll Rankings" sponsored by The HR Capitalist

--SEE HR BLOG POWER RANKINGS HERE

--Poll is based on 103 HR-related blogs, including properties focused on HRM, recruiting, compensation, rewards/recognition, benefits, vendor products, leadership, workplace culture, employment law and related legal issues.  Oddly enough, the search continues for the world's first payroll blog.  Go figure...

--Blogs seeking inclusion in the HR Blog Power Poll may submit their site to The HR Capitalist for voting moving forward.  Blogs seeking inclusion must support RSS via Google Reader.

--Poll Sponsor (HR Capitalist) has all eligible blogs loaded into latest version of Google Reader and pledges to read, or attempt to read, every post from every eligible blog moving forward.

--Upon reading blog entry, Poll Sponsor determines if entry contains news/thoughts/humor/entertainment exceptional enough to recommend to HR colleagues for consideration.  In short, the entry must have data/news/opinion/reflections with substance to improve the life of an average HR Manager/Director/VP as judged by poll sponsor.

--If entry is judged as exceptional, entry is starred for the record moving forward.

--Per the structure of Google Reader, all eligible blogs are sorted according to the number of exceptional entries judged to be created by owners.  Blogs are then ranked from #1 to #25 based on this criteria.

--Blogs in Top 25 will receive overall ranking, a power index noting the number of starred entries, an indicator noting last position in poll and some quick-hitting notes regarding what makes them special. 

--Blogs not in Top 25 but receiving starred entries will receive a "shout out" in the "Also Receiving Votes" section of the poll, meaning they are players in the eyes of the poll sponsor.

--Ties among blogs with same number of starred entries are broken according to even more subjective criteria than those listed above.  Kind of like the College BCS poll in this area...

--Power Index/Number of Starred Entries always reflects the body of work for the last 30 days.  With this in mind, blogs consistently generating great work are rewarded, those having one strong month out of twelve are destined to become another "Tone Loc".

--Quality posts are what is measured via the poll, but blogs are not penalized for posting more frequently than their peers.  If it takes you 10 posts a day to crank out the masterpiece, cool.  If you can become #1 with two posts a week, more power to you.

--Blogs with lots of political humor or dirty words generally won't be ranked high in the poll since I can't recommend them to all my HR friends.  Sensitive bunch, those HR people.  Additionally, Q&A from employees generally won't generate a recommended post unless it includes content a HR Generalist can appreciate.

--Blogs from specialists in areas like recruiting, vendors, benefits, etc. may have more excellent posts than reflected in this poll.  The Poll Sponsor will only count as exceptional those posts with strong projected interest to the HR Generalist community at the Manager/Director/VP level.

   

Mothering and Caring in Leadership/Coaching... By Steve Nash...

Lots of opinions out there regarding the most critical skills to build effective managers.  Coaching Skills?  Sure.  Performance Management skills?  You Bet.....

Mothering skills?... Excuse me?

Two-time MVP of the NBA Steve Nash was on Charlie Rose, and talked at length about his job. One of the most under-appreciated aspects of his role, says Nash, is the need to be a mother and a psychologist to his teammates.   From the "True Hoops" breakdown of the interview:

"The Phoenix guard knows a lot of stuff and talks about mastering the kinds of skills you might learn in some communications class, including non-verbal things like how his teammates are holding their shoulders, what's in their eyes, and what they're talking about. Who is frustrated? Who has lost confidence? Nash sees it as a key to his job to "take them all in at once."

What's the hardest part of all that? I'm guessing a lot of people can tell when Shawn Marion is feeling low, just watching on TV. Reading body language need not be rocket science. But the difference with Nash? He put his finger right on it: "To care."

That's the crucial difference. That's the special part. We all see Marion upset and think it's his problem. Nash sees Marion upset and sees that as, at least in some manner, Nash's problem.

Caring about his team like that, Nash says with the smirk of the understater, "takes some effort."

The emotional element of being an effective manager is probably the one we talk least about, and is likely the most difficult for a lot of first-time managers.  That's especially true when young managers are frozen by HR demands to watch the interpersonal side of work relationships in an effort to avoid being sued.

Great leaders like Nash seem to transcend the normal models, and do it in such a classy way it's rarely misinterpreted.  Not sure you can teach this type of instinct.... Video of the interview below is worth your time if you want to see what a humble superstar sounds like... 

Tom Brady, Baby Daddies, FMLA and Dependent Eligibility....

It's getting close to NFL time in America, and that means the Capitalist is keeping a close eye on all things football when not polishing up the HR skills.  With that in mind, it's preseason, so instead of game scores and injury reports, items like NFL superstar Tom Brady's fathering skills get more airtime than actual football. 

Here's the rundown for Brady.  The ex-girlfriend of Brady, actress Bridget Moynahan, gave birth to their baby boy on Wednesday. Brady flew out that day to visit mother and child in Santa Monica, Calif., where Moynahan lives, but he shares a home in New York with his current girlfriend, model Gisele Bundchen, who is also rumored to be pregnant.

Two HR Questions from the world of Brady:

1.  Should Brady apply for FMLA leave even if he is willing to take banked time off to cover the absence?  Ever notice how most dads don't apply for FMLA even if they are going out on any form of paternity leave?  Would you make him certify under FMLA so you could count the time?

2.  Assuming Brady isn't legally married to either woman, under what circumstances would you cover either child as a covered dependent?  Need some type of legal document establishing paternity?

Of course you need the legal paperwork to cover Brady's son.  You are trying to hold the line on medical expenses.  No one, including a golden boy like Brady, sneaks on your medical plan without paperwork.... Plus, you're probably a Colts fan....

What HR Can Learn From the Michael Vick Saga...

What's that?  "Don't hire people who are running dog-fighting rings."  Thanks Aristotle... Is there a box I can check with my background vendor to cover that?

You've got another one?  "The problem with employees having large entourages is all the access badges you have to create."   Good advice, Nostradamus...

Seriously - there are at least three strong HR takeaways from the Mike Vick saga currently showing at a news channel near you. 

First, the ones that are most obvious:

1.  It's always a good idea to think about whether you want an employee who has been charged with a crime still in the workplace.  This one comes in a million different flavors.  Misdemeanor/Felony, Violent Crime/Non-Violent Crime, Substance Abuse/No Substance Abuse, and every combination in between.  Do you want the employee in the workplace while they get their life in order?  Depends on the charges, of course.  Regardless of the charge, your company should be asking this question for anyone who is charged with a crime.  If you decide you are better off without them until things are cleared up, your handbook probably supports a suspension based on the charge, but you'll probably have to grant them paid leave to stay entirely clear of legal considerations.

2.  It's nice to have a succession plan in place.  John Hollon hit this topic late last week over at Workforce.  The Falcons had drafted a stud quarterback in Matt Shawb a couple of years ago to backup Vick, but it recently became too expensive to retain him, so they traded him away, effectively eliminating their plan B.  Now that Vick is getting ready to report to Leavenworth, they are stuck with Joey Harrington, now with his third team after flame outs with Detroit and Miami.  As a result of the lack of succession, the local experts in Atlanta are already calling sellouts at the Georgia Dome a thing of the past.  Who's on your bench for key positions?

Now, for the not-so-obvious lesson:

3.  He (or she) who controls the spin controls public opinion.  In a little-reported twist to this story, ESPN started buzzing on Thursday night about the possibility Vick would plea, but would not admit to participating in the killing of dogs or gambling.  As a result of this report, the airwaves at ESPN and other outlets were buzzing about the news and focusing on what the plea would not include, which made Vick look good compared to the worst case scenario.  When the plea finally came, Vick admitted to being a part of the killing of animals and gambling on the dogfights.  The ex post facto viewpoint?  Vick's attorney's likely leaked the Vick-friendly version, which dominated the news for a 18 hour period before the actual plea became public.  As a result, countless individuals who heard the "unidentified source" story have a more positive view of Vick than they would if they had read the court documents.

The HR takeaway from #3?  Spin doesn't have to be a negative term or denote lying.  On organizational issues and items that can drive employee morale and organizational effectiveness, timing and the distribution of the message mean everything.   No one is saying you should should lie - exactly the opposite.  The real lesson is to get the truthful, honest message out as fast as you can, then reinforce it through repetition.

Those were my big takeaways, but I know you likely have more.  What's your take on the HR connection to the Vick saga? 

Do You Measure Your Manager's Effectiveness at Hiring?

I know who my best interviewers/hiring managers are.  Or at least I think I do.   But that knowledge is more intuition than science, because I don't measure the success of my hiring managers.  Do you?  Probably not, because you have a million things to do.   But for companies ramping up their hiring efforts, it makes sense to track which hiring managers "get it", and identify those that don't.

How do you measure who makes quality hires?  In a recent BusinessWeek back page column (subscription required), Jack Welch recently laid out this common sense approach called the "Hiring Batting Average":

"HERE'S HOW IT WORKS. Every candidate for a job at your company must be interviewed by at least three people in the organization beyond the hiring manager, and each interviewer must sign off with a "Hire" or "Don't Hire" vote. No maybes allowed. Fast-forward six months. Every new hire gets evaluated by his manager on how he has performed against expectations: below, meets, or exceeds. Soon enough, and with enough critical mass, you can start to compare every interviewer's "Hire" recommendations with actual performance. For instance, say a manager named Emily has approved 10 candidates and, six months out, eight of them are performing at or above expectations. Emily's HBA would be .800. That impressive score lets you know Emily is a first-rate evaluator of talent, and she should be rewarded accordingly. By contrast, say Emily's colleague John has given the nod to 12 hires and, after six months, only four are working out, for an HBA of .333. Keep John in his day job and away from picking people!"

I like the concept, but there are some "must-haves".  To effectively use this type of system, companies have to be OK with using the consensus-building system that Welch describes - 3 to 4 interviewers for each open position, with the hiring manager having final authority but everyone on the team being forced to say "yes or no".   For some hiring managers, this feels like they are giving up control.  They don't want the feedback, which feels like meddling.   An unwillingness to solicit feedback from others is likely a leading indicator of a low hiring batting average for these types of managers.

Another control issue with this type of metric would be the "gamers" of the system.  It's plausible that these gamers could simply pledge not to vote "yes" for any candidate who wasn't perfect or who wasn't a direct fit for the position in question.  As a result, their batting average might go up, but it would be fairly meaningless since multiple quality candidates might have been missed.  If the hiring manager still decided to hire such a candidate and he/she was successful, maybe you could debit the naysayer and call it a "miss" after the fact.

No system is perfect, and you'd have to fight through these types of issues.  Still, if you are hiring big groups of employees, it might make sense to give it a shot.  Welch also points to the fact that this type of vote might make managers more emotionally invested, which would lead to better employee support and even informal mentoring, which all companies need more of.

Last word - Batting .300 in baseball will make you an All-Star.  In hiring, it makes you unemployed....    

Make Sure You Get the Keys From Exiting Employees...

Why?  Or the scene below can happen to you....

 

Hiring Jason Bourne via the Myers-Briggs Assessment...

Michael at The Career Revolution has a cool breakdown of HR considerations if you are employing Jason Bourne from the Bourne Ultimatum.    One caught my eye with special interest - Pre-employment testing, and how you would figure out if Bourne was a fit for your organization.

My solution?  Let's figure out if Jason Bourne would be a good match for your team via the tool you know and love - the Myers-Briggs test. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality questionnaire designed to identify certain psychological differences according to the typological theories of Carl Gustav Jung as published in his 1921 book Psychological Types.  More importantly, it has a strong following with corporate types as they try and figure out who's the best fit for their team...

Here are the Myers-Briggs determinations we have to make to judge if Bourne will play nice with the other assassins in your organizations:

-Introvert or Extrovert?  Can a spy on the run afford to be an extrovert?  This one is the easy one, so the first letter in his Myers-Briggs is "I"...

-Sensing or Intuition?  Bourne trusts only the information he can sense through his tuned up senses.  Don't be fooled that he is acting on Intution.  He's a cyborg, and it's all about what he can validate.  Second letter is an "S"....

-Thinking or Feeling?  Bourne measures decisions by what is reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules.  So thinking it is, and he's a "T"...

-Judging or Perceiving?  Like most spys, Bourne is happy to leave matters open, for further input; he may want to leave finishing a task until close to the deadline, and be energized by a late rush of information and ideas; and he is ready to change plans if new information comes along.   "P" it is...

Add it all up and what do you have?  An ISTP.  What's that mean?  From the site typelogic:

"Like their fellow SPs, ISTPs are fundamentally Performers (note the capital 'P' :-)), but as Ts their areas of interest tend to be mechanical rather than artistic like those of ISFPs, and unlike most ESPs they do not present an impression of constant activity. On the contrary, they lie dormant, saving their energy until a project or an adventure worthy of their time comes along--and then they launch themselves at it. The apparently frenzied state that inevitably ensues is actually much more controlled than it appears--ISTPs always seem to know what they're doing when it comes to physical or mechanical obstacles--but the whole chain of events presents a confusing and paradoxical picture to an outsider."

That sounds like Bourne.  Got a place on your Account Management team for him?  He's looking for his next gig....

Great Job Kid! Here's Your 5%, Now Be Happy...

Is a 5% bump for your top performers enough?  That's the 64K question...

My source for all things compensation related, Ann Bares of Compensation Force, has broken down the merit pay side of the most recent Mercer Comp Survey.  According to Mercer's survey, the highest performing employees are expected to receive base pay increases of 5.7% in 2007, compared to 3.5% for average performers and 1.7% for the weakest performers.  Over 1,000 large companies participate, so it feels valid and the numbers seem about right:

Average pay increase percent by rating group according to Mercer via Ann:

• Highest-rated employees (12% of workforce):  5.7%
• Next highest-rated employees (28% of workforce):  4.5%
• Middle-rated employees (52% of workforce):  3.5%
• Low-rated employees (6% of workforce):  2.0%
• Lowest-rated employees (3% of workforce):  1.7%

The big question in my mind remains the same.  Would you downsize a low performer and not get the headcount back to thrill your high performers with a bigger increase? 

Carnival of Human Resources #14 is Up.....

and hosted by the always capable Wally Bock of 3-Star Leadership.  Enjoy the op/ed....

What's That Smell? Self Assessments & Performance Management

As an individual who recently revamped a performance management system from the old subjective system (everyone gets the same 80 items, rank on a scale of 1 to 5) to one driven by cascading goals driving individual objectives across the organization, I've had a lot of time to ponder things in the performance management space.  One thing I have ran into is the value of allowing employees to evaluate themselves as part of the process (Self-Evaluations!!)....

Now, I don't want go all Dennis Miller and get off on a rant here, but the prospect of self-evaluations is more riddled with holes than the final season of the Sopranos.

Here's why I don't like Self Evaluations:

1.  There is always a gap between real and perceived performance, and the gap is always largest with your lowest performing employees.  Poor performers lack the skills to perform - which are the same skills required to evaluate their performance. They don’t understand that they don’t understand, and so believe their abilities compare positively to their peers.  The Success Factors Blog plots this out with research to back it up... See the chart below from their site as well....

2.  Self Assessments set up managers who struggle with performance management to fail unnecessarily.  Your inexperienced managers already have a hard time with conflict, so you take your garden variety self-assessment (the one that allows the employees to have the first crack before receiving the feedback of the manager) and automatically your manager is boxed in a deep corner of conflict.  What is he/she to do?  Go after the perceived gaps and really drive home their point of view with multiple specifics?  Or just give in, offer up a few comments, give the employee 75% of what they wanted, and live to fight another day?  Better to allow the manager to drive the process with their thoughts before the employee has a chance to frame the conversation.  Self-Assessment afterwords, OK - Self Assessment before, not so good...

3.  Self Assessments are often crutches for managers with poor writing skills.  I literally had a manager just offer up the objective-based system to an employee, then turn it in as his own work.  I called the employee (happens to be a manager of people working for a Director) and said, "You wrote your own review didn't you?"  To which the employee responded "I did the self assessment part and I think ____ took most of my recommendations.  If you look at the last sentence of each section where the grammar changes (she meant where the grammar became very poor), you'll be able to see his comments".  Nice... what more can I say?

4.  Most employees confuse behavior and performance that "meets" expectations as "exceeding" expectations.  Called all your customers?  Got all the transactions that are a part of your job complete?  Darn, that is just plain "Exceeds"...(I'm Joking).  Most employees have the opinion that if they knock out the major components of their job, they are exceeding.  That's incorrect - the progressive view of performance management suggests that employees need to innovate and add value in other ways to truly "Exceed"  Want to know what happens with weak managers when a "Meets" employee turns in a self-evaluation that rates themselves as an "Exceeds"?   See #2 - they fold without the help of a competent partner on the Human Capital team...

Exceptions to my observations - if you use self assessments as part of a well tuned 360 degree feedback program, the self rating probably has the proper rating and is effectively counter-balanced by the non-manager feedback of others.  Of course, 360 degree feedback programs have their own set of issues, and I'll leave the pro/con breakdown of that for another day.

Bottom line - unless your org is a well-oiled performance management machine, leave the self assessment on the shelf.  Your managers won't overcome it...

Of course, like Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Why Employees Don't Come to HR When 401k Balances Are Down 10%

If you follow the Business page or even the news in general, you know we have been in the midst of a downturn in the stock market.  Over the weekend, I thought about my email, phone and office traffic over the last 2-3 weeks while the market has been going crazy and corrected down around 10%.

My conclusion?  I hadn't had a single conversation with an employee who was freaking out about the value of their 401k.  I checked mine, and it was down about 8% overall for the three-week period ending last Friday. 

Is there any other area where employees take a 8% decrease and aren't hitting you hard to determine what's going on or how to get it back?  Could it be our employees are a bunch of savvy long-term investors, with the required understanding of the long-term horizon and the confidence that comes with that approach?

Or, are they just not watching their accounts?  And if they aren't watching their accounts and the related news during market corrections, is that the best investment approach they could have?    The Frontal Cortex recently rehashed some 1980's Harvard Research that suggests less news equals less action, which produces better results.  From the summary of the research:

"In the late 1980's, the Harvard psychologist Paul Andreassen conducted a simple experiment on MIT business students. First, he let the students select a portfolio of stock investments. Then he divided the students into two groups. The first group could only see the changes in the prices of their stocks. They had no idea why the share prices rose or fall, and had to make their trading decisions based on an extremely limited amount of data. In contrast, the second group was given access to a steady stream of financial information. This was supposed to be equivalent to watching CNBC, reading The Wall Street Journal and listening to experts analyze the latest market trends.

So which group did better? To Andreassen's surprise, the group with less information ended up earning significantly more money than the well-informed group. Being exposed to extra news was distracting. Instead of focusing on the important variables - the actual movement of share prices - the "high-information" students would become fixated on the latest rumors and insider gossip. (Herbert Simon said it best: "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.") As a result, these students engaged in far more buying and selling than the "low-information" group. They were confident that all their knowledge allowed them to anticipate the market. But they were wrong. Too much information can induce a state of ignorance."

Of course, this research probably assumes that the participants held valid investments with the proper amount of diversification, etc, which is not always the case.   Additionally, employees obviously have to be participating in their 401ks for the "buy and hold" approach to work as a long term investment strategy.

So, get your employees to participate in the 401k, educate on indexing and diversification, then bask in the knowledge that once properly invested, not following the news in downturns is probably a good thing.

Gecko would be proud....   

Thanks to the Readers - HR Capitalist Pushes Past 50,000 visits...

OK, Ray Kroc I'm not.  But a while back, The HR Capitalist pushed past the 50,000 visitor mark since we lit this candle of hope and started posting regularly in mid-February of 2007. 

How about a special shout out to those who helped make that happen?  Thanks to: 

• Visitors who came once never to return - your click-throughs count too...
• Returning visitors and subscribers - you count more than those listed above.  Please, never leave!
• Distribution partners like The Industry Radar and Workforce.com - Thanks for picking up the content and letting people find me off your sites...
• The temp I hired to click on the site 48,768 times from April through last week.  Your dedication to excellence is witnessed in your machine-like precision and ability to ward off carpel-tunnel syndrome.  And the fact I paid you hourly instead of by the click....

Just joking about the temp.... Thanks to all who have read, commented and helped in any way across the first 6 months of the project!

When You've Just Been Promoted to "Manager of" from "Manager"...

A friend of mine (I'll call him Johnny) emailed me last week and told me he had been promoted to "Manager of Customer Service" from "Customer Service Manager".

Ah yes, nothing says "I've arrived" more than an in-line promotion that tweaks your title a little bit but really changes nothing else.... Why do companies do this?  Sometimes real considerations drive the process, other times it's just the usual organizational madness...

I once worked for an organization that had "Manager of" titles and "Manager" titles.   Some of you are now questioning my aptitude to host an HR-related site.  The rest of you have worked on a Death Star before, and kind of understand that the compensation folks can come up with some crazy schemes to back up the whim of any organization.  By the way, Darth Vadar was a "Operations Manager" until The Empire Strikes Back, at which point he got the in-line promotion to "Manager of Operations" at Empire Industries... Even though things weren't going great, the Sith understood he might have a retention issue and wanted to lock him in for at least the remainder of the fiscal year.  You get the vibe...

Example of how it works:  In the past company I worked at, the "Manager" title was the lessor of the two designations, with the "Manager of" being preferred.  So, you had "Customer Service Managers" running around call centers, with the "Manager of Customer Service" being the senior designation of choice.  How did one promote to the "Manager of" title?  Good question.  There were some loose designations about Call Center size impacting eligibility, but over time the Directors of the centers kind of used it at their discretion, and it became impossible to manage or explain.

So Johnny, here's to you and your promotion.  Take a look at the clip from The Office below (hat tip to Michael at Career Revolution where I found the clip) and by all means, order new business cards instead of "fixing" your existing ones with white-out....

Are You Among the Top 10% of Performers In Your Company?

Sure you are... and so is everyone else...

In a classic case of Narcissism, a recent BusinessWeek poll asked 2,000 middle managers and execs that very question.  The answer?  Yes... 1800 times.  90% of respondents said they were in the top 10%.  And we wonder why confrontation in Performance Management is such an issue...

Wow, can you imagine the self-esteem issues the other 10% must have with this group of egos walking around?   If I could figure out who they are, I'd get them some help... Maybe a Tony Robbins semimar, or if the budget is a little tight, Matt Foley....

Channeling Chris Rock - Negative Comments in Performance Reviews

Can you imagine what a curse-filled, negative experience a performance review would be with Chris Rock as the reviewer?

When you use negative comments in a written performance review, your employees hear the same thing.  No matter how professionally you try to pull it off - it's personal.   It's Chris Rock dropping the F-bomb, talking trash about them in public....

Everyone ebbs and flows regarding giving feedback to direct reports.  You have an issue one day, and your week goes crazy and you never get a chance to talk to the employee in question about the issue.  Next issue that comes up, you're providing feedback same day to get the problem corrected - maybe too harshly.   The good news?  Most employees understand the variability and cut you some slack for the times you are harsh if it averages out overall. 

Keep in mind, that's for day-to-day coaching.  Employees are of an entirely different mindset when it  comes to their annual performance reviews.  Written comments on the annual review are always the subject of greater scrutiny.  Why?   Reasons include the following (from the employee's view):

1.  It's in writing, and that feels final...
2.  It will be in my file for eternity, there for my future manager to see long after you are gone..
3.  My friend Bob in another department wasn't subjected to the same scrutiny, so why me?...
4.  It proves you don't like me...
5.  You are wrong.

With those feelings in mind, giving an overall rating to an employee is one thing, but providing comments to back up the overall rating is the emotional powder keg.  You've got multiple choices with each comment string you write to back up a category rating contained in the review.  One of those choices is what spurs the true emotion - negative, critical comments in a performance review. 

You think you are handling it well.  But all the employee hears is Chris Rock going off on a negative, curse-filled rant.

Example of a fairly benign negative comment (this one is well written compared to some toxic language I have seen) - "Joseph needs to watch the tone of his voice when communicating with customers.  He is often perceived as negative and confrontational."

Ouch.... That would sting most of us, so managers have to know when it's appropriate to use the negative, critical comment.  After all, the goal is improved performance, not simply ripping them, right?

The Breakdown of Appropriate Use of Performance Management Negativity:

Situation #1 - Performance Review Category rated "Exceeds" - You're kidding me right?  You want to plug an area you rate as Exceeds with a negative comment?  No use of negativity is ever appropriate here, you caveman/cavewoman...

Situation #2 - Category rated "Does Not Meet" - They don't meet the objective, right?  So some negativity is required, just keep it behavioral in nature, direct and non-personal.  In other words, based on facts.  It's still going to hurt, but you have to back up the rating.

Situation #3 - Category rated "Meets" - Ah, yes.  The most dangerous category of all.  Employee meets the objective, but you think they can deliver more.  Wouldn't a negative comment jolt them into improved performance?  Not likely.  Don't try to be a hero by going negative in this situation.  You have to reinforce the positives, then encourage them to stretch for more...

Want a better way to drive increased performance for the "Meets" performer?  Compliment him/her with a few things they do well to support the "Meets" rating, then give them some stretch objectives on what it will take to become a "Exceeds" performer in the area in question.

Or, just drop the dime on them like our friend Chris Rock.... Your choice....

Top 6 Reasons Your Company Keeps that Jerk...

Check out my article at workforce.com detailing the Top 6 Reasons Companies Keep Jerks Around...

Here's how it starts:

"Earlier this year, Robert Sutton’s book The No Asshole Rule was released to critical acclaim. I loved the idea behind the book. You loved it. Workforce Management’s editor, John Hollon, broke it down for us and loved it as well.

Then a funny thing happened. We all went back to work and kept tolerating the jerks.

What the hell happened?"

See the rest at http://www.workforce.com/section/01/feature/25/05/21/index.html

LinkedIn - Now Spamming Employees at a Company Near You (Yours!)

If you don't use LinkedIn as a HR Pro, you probably want to check it out sometime soon.  It's a useful tool you need to know how to use.  But today, it just got downgraded on my "juice" scale.

LinkedIn started spamming for candidates.

LinkedIn used to be different.  A service to allow people to network professionally - and recruit.  No ads, a great free service with the option to upgrade to a paid model with better tools via enhanced search and contact options.  The only real problem was what I will affectionately refer to as the "promiscuous" LinkedIn user, a person looking to get as many contacts as possible to expand the power of their network, regardless of whether they knew you or not.

Today, a member of my team received a broadcast email from LinkedIn touting generalized IT positions open at the banking giant Wachovia.  Clearly a purchased list enabling spam through the network.  Other posts on the web suggest that LinkedIn is doing the same thing for its own open positions.  What's next?  Nigerian inheritance emails from LinkedIn?  From a NYT blog:

"DeWitt Clinton, a programmer at Google, said on his blog yesterday that he received a recruiting pitch from LinkedIn, the popular networking site for professional types: “From your LinkedIn Profile, we thought you may be a good fit for the LinkedIn Engineering team.” Mr. Clinton is a LinkedIn member, but not because he is looking for a job. In fact his profile on the site, which is visible to other members, specifically states, “Sorry, no recruiters, please,” and he has turned off the flags that would indicate to searchers that he is on the market.

Jason Shellen, who recently left Google, and another current employee chimed in on Mr. Clinton’s blog to say they had received similar notes, and Mr. Clinton later added that it looked as if LinkedIn had “spammed everyone at Google.”

Mr. Shellen, who is not a programmer, said in an e-mail that the message from LinkedIn annoyed him because he expected the company to be better at targeting potential hires, “not to mention that I don’t remember opting in to receive direct offers like this from LinkedIn.”

I get that LinkedIn has to find a way to monetize its product.  Previously, this was done by selling professional subscriptions, which allowed recruiters like me to look beyond their personal networks and see talent that might match across LinkedIn.  The catch?  You can't spam hundreds and thousands of users at a time using the professional subscription.  You have to do it one at a time, which means you choose who you email very carefully.  Recipients of your email also had a chance to rate your inquiry, a form of user feedback designed to prevent spamming.

Apparently, the same doesn't apply for the big corporations with deep pockets.  It may just be an experiment, but if it becomes the norm, LinkedIn will start seeing current subscribers walk out the door.  And if they are recruiting your employees, the spam filters won't be far behind...

Tools to Improve the Job Offer Close Rate in the US Army...

Can you imagine a harder place to recruit for then the Army right now?  Regardless of your view of what's going on, you have to admire the folks charged with selling the story - a conflict many years old and a combat tour of duty that has been expanded to 15 months from the usual 12 months.   Now that's a tough sell as a recruiter.....

Recent misses regarding recruiting goals (signing up 7,031 of an expected 8,400 in June) have caused the Army to prime the pump and strengthen the signing bonus package.  To make it happen, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command is offering a $20,000 "quick-ship" bonus. The recruits must not have any previous military experience, must enlist for a minimum of 2 year active service and must report for basic training no later than 30 days after they enlist. They must also enlist before Sept 30.   From the Chicago Tribune coverage:

"The Army has offered signing bonuses in other instances when "Be All That You Can Be" and other such recruiting slogans have proven an especially tough sell. The most recent instance was in March, when the Army offered $15,000 bonuses for soldiers who agreed to a quick training and deployment schedule. But lately, as the future of the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes more uncertain and conditions for soldiers fighting those battles grow more trying, the Army has had to raise the offer.

"It's been a very tough recruiting environment for several years, and when we get into a tough environment, we're working very close in," said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting. "We have to fill those training seats."

Here's the interesting part to me.  The Army is not advertising the offer, hoping instead for a viral, word of mouth spread of the offer:

"You won't find somebody coming in straight off the street without an interest in joining," said Sgt. William Dunn.  "I don't want to put someone in the Army strictly because they hear about the $20,000 ... but money talks."

Most of the recruits who have taken advantage of the bonus to date have at least been considering military service, or have already signed up, and agree to expedite their deployment.

Not advertising the signing bonus is probably the right thing to do.  Can you imagine the critisism that would bring in today's political climate?  With that approach in mind, the signing bonus is really there to assist the recruiters in closing the deal and getting accepted offers with the foot traffic/candidates they already have.

I know I won't find it, but it would be fascinating to get the data for how the signing bonus improves the offer close rate.  Do you miss on many offers?  Could you close them with a $20,000 signing bonus?  I'm sure you could, but then again your cubes aren't outside the Green Zone in Baghdad either....

When Jerks Are Asked to Leave - Keep Them Away From the Cameras...

We've talked from time to time at the Capitalist about Jerks in the workplace, and why companies often keep them around. 

What about when Jerks are asked to leave?  Should you allow an extended period of notice (2 weeks?  1 month?) for them to wrap up work activities and assist in whatever transition needs to happen?

I know most of you replied with an emphatic "NO".  John Hollon of Workforce recently provided more reasons why that's the correct answer.  In a recent blog entry, John details the recent craziness at KOCE, which is the sister TV station of the Orange County Register newspaper.  To make use of the synergy between broadcast and print, KOCE often does TV feeds of reporters from the newsroom of the Orange County Register talking about news events, etc.  Like many of these types of feeds, part of the attraction is the bustling newsroom in the background at the OCR.

As it turns out, there's a reporter/editor with a alleged history of being disruptive in these telecasts from the newsroom.  In addition, the reported disruptive newsman had recently been given notice that he was being impacted by layoffs.  So what's he do after the notice?  Walks behind the camera during a live broadcast, starts picking his nose, then wipes it on his shirt.  Niiiiiiice....  Here's a clip from a letter of complaint forwarded by the News Director at KOCE (from the blog LAobserved):

"During an interview, which will air tonight, with Register reporter John Gittelsohn another Register employee walked over to the interview area, intentionally stood behind John, faced the camera, picked his nose, and wiped it on his shirt.

I've spoken with Register Broadcast Engineer Don Nebel about this individual. Don has stated that when the lights for the camera go on and we begin interview segments, this individual makes it a point to be loud, disruptive, and perform antics for the camera. Don has "waived him off" on numerous occasions, however he continues to disrupt our segments and has now escalated his attempts to embarrass both KOCE and the Register."

Cut and dry outlandish behavior, right?  Not so fast - the editor of the Orange County Register wrote a reply excusing the reporter's behavior (also indexed by LAobserved), including the following:

"CP is often loud, the technician told me. And he's often in the vicinity when the TV camera is recording. CP is loud. It's part of who he is."

The "it's not a big deal" letter for the OCR editor also included thoughts indicating that CP didn't do it on purpose.  I'm no detective, but CP sure seems squared up to the camera as the nose picking is underway.  Odds on that type of square up if he didn't know the cameras were live?  10 to 1?  100 to 1?  More?

The moral of the story?  Be on the lookout for the following rationalization to keep jerks around - "that's just who he is", or "that's just <insert name> being <insert name>". 

One other point - if jerks know they are on the way out, it's probably not in your best interest to keep them in the workplace.  Too many risks, including a national platform for nose-picking....

How NOT to Compete For Your Dream HR Job....

No matter how happy you are in your current HR gig, you've seen or heard of a job that sounded good to you.  Maybe you even made it part of your career plan (only Stalin had a five year plan, so I don't put timeframes on career maps)..

How did you mentally map out that career plan?  Maybe you thought to yourself, "I need to work on area X, Y and Z to prepare for that role."  Or "I'll get some stretch exposure in succession planning to be ready the next time that Director of HR role comes open".  That seems logical..

Or did you think "You know, I'm the number 2 here and I really don't feel like waiting.  I'll just break Samantha's wrists so she can't type, and then I'll slide into the number 1 role".

You didn't?  Good!!!  But some people in society do... In a truth is stranger than fiction item, a former backup punter for the Northern Colorado football team was convicited of stabbing the #1 punter to win the starting role in 2006:

"Prosecutors said Mitch Cozad was so obsessed with becoming Northern Colorado's starting punter that he plunged a 5-inch-long knife into his rival's kicking leg.

A jury agreed, convicting Cozad of second-degree assault Thursday. But he was acquitted of the more serious charge of attempted first-degree murder.

The 22-year-old from Wheatland, Wyo., now faces up to 16 years in a Colorado prison for the attack on starting punter Rafael Mendoza.

Mendoza was ambushed outside his apartment on the night of Sept. 11. He couldn't say who attacked him in the dimly lighted parking lot. He testified the assailant was dressed in black from head to toe and had a hood cinched up so only the eyes were visible.

Cozad was a junior walk-on when he joined Northern Colorado's football team last season after transferring from the University of Wyoming. Over the six days of testimony and arguments, prosecutors portrayed him as an ambitious but frustrated athlete who stabbed Mendoza because he couldn't outplay him on the field.

The attempted murder charge could have meant a sentence of up to 48 years."

That's proactive career advice straight from the Tonya Harding academy.  Watch your back!!