Confused About Who's Engaged? Try This Handy Engagement Test to Sort It All Out...

My posts last week regarding the concept of engagement and subsequent research on the topic clarified a couple of things to me. 

-First, trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of engagment is harder than trying to get Britney Spears to settle down and work it all out with K-Fed.   

-Second, my take on the best way to have an engaged workforce is to a) ensure you hire talent that is already predisposed to be engaged, and b) figure out the best way to create an environment where "engagement fence straddlers" (those who might be engaged if placed in the right type of environment) elect to become engaged...

Of course, being the scientific, progressive manager you are, you want a way to baseline the current engagement level of your team before you start tinkering with the environment.   WOW - you are an achiever, and if I might add, an engaged one at that...

At the risk of being savagely attacked by the engagement community, here's my back of the napkin, "let's wing it" test to determine the engagment level of your current team:

1.  Tell your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would like to support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.  The only rules are that the project has to be work-related and potentially have a payoff to the business - but if the process leads to them developing new skills that adds value to them as professionals, so be it.

2.  Answer your team's questions about what is appropriate related to the project.  You might also get questions about how you will measure whether their current workload is being maintained.  Answer all questions to the best of your ability, without telling them how to do it.

3.  Once you've answered all the questions, don't do anything for 3 weeks.

4.  At the 3 week mark, check back in with everyone on your team in brief 1-on-1 sessions.  Have they started the project time?  What are they working on?

Here's how to score your findings:

-Associates who have taken advantage of your offer and are aggresively moving forward with a project - ENGAGED

-Associates who have developed some thoughts about what they might do, but have not taken action yet - NOT ENGAGED, BUT POSSIBLY COULD BECOME ENGAGED WITH THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL TWEAKS FROM YOU

-Associates who have done nothing, or have excuses for why they didn't take advantage of the offer - NOT ENGAGED AND NOT PROBABLE TO BECOME ENGAGED, regardless of your efforts.

Remember, this is only a test, and an informal one at that.  You might actually have to start being engaged yourself to create the environment where your direct reports are engaged.  One of the things I learned from the engagement community is that according to Gallup, on average, 29% of employees are engaged and 71% are either unengaged (neutral) or disengaged (opposed).

PS - my take on this as a nice informal test of engagement is based on the engagement traits listed in this post...

How many members of your team would you expect to take the offer and run with it? 

Just as important - Would you? 

Yahoo (the Google of the 90's) Announces 1,000 Layoffs...

Everybody loves Google.  The perks, the options, and yes, the backrubs...

So apply today.  If you can't join 'em, feel free to buy some Google stock at $548 per share, because in the near term, it's probably going up.

Just know that the business cycle is... well, a cycle.  Companies built on 50% growth models ultimately slow down....

Need some proof?  Consider the case of Yahoo, which still is probably a very cool place to work.  It was the Google of the 90's...  And today, it announced plans to layoff 1,000 employees, which is about 7% of it's workforce. 

From the New York Times:

"After announcing a sharp drop in fourth-quarter profits Tuesday, Yahoo issued a disappointing outlook for this year, suggesting that investors would have to wait until 2009 for a turnaround.

Yahoo also said that as part of its plan to revive its fortunes, it would cut 1,000 jobs by mid-February to reduce costs and narrow its focus to its most important businesses.

The company, however, said it planned to invest aggressively in some areas, like advertising technology and selected portions of its Internet portal, as it tries to capture a larger share of online ad dollars. Since some laid-off employees could apply for new jobs at Yahoo, the net effect on the work force, which recently grew to 14,300, was not clear.

Jerry Yang, the chief executive, warned investors of “head winds” this year. Yahoo’s projections for revenue growth and profitability in 2008 were either at the low end of analysts’ expectations or below them."

It's sad when a cool brand ends up looking like a normal business.  Just serves as a reminder that the coolest brands, business models and cultures are susceptible to competition, pressure on margins, and making money...

Why Bashing Hillary or Huckabee is Bad Business for Managers....

I was on the road last week and had the time/location to catch up with a couple of former co-workers.  While politics didn't drive the conversation, we talked for a few minutes regarding the ongoing presidential primaries as part of the banter.  On the flight back home, I was struck by the fact I hadn't had a meaningful conversation on politics, within my workplace, since the primaries began.

I guess that means my HR DNA, to avoid all topics divisive to the workplace, is functioning correctly...

Robert Cenek of the Cenek Report checked in last weekend with a similar post entitled "Political Banter in the Workplace", where he throws out some statistics on the wisdom (or lack thereof) in managers talking politics with their direct reports:

"According to a survey by Vault.com, 35% of bosses openly share their political views with employees, and 9% of workers feel pressure to conform to the boss’ views. Regarding co-workers, 30% of respondents said that a co-worker has tried to influence their choice in an election.

An article appearing at Associated Content reported that 53% of those surveyed believed that politics should never be discussed in the workplace. These results seem to reflect the conventional wisdom that discussions about religion and politics should be off limits during the workday."

To be sure, conversations about religion, politics, race and other sensitive topics are going to happen in the workplace.  The workplace imitates life, so that's just the way it is.

Employees talking to other employees about politics?  Cool, as long as you know that it's a polarizing topic.

The catch comes when those with authority over others begin to flex their opinion muscle as part of their daily banter.  HR people?  Probably need to stay away from polarizing topics, which basically covers any opinion you can have in these areas.    Pick a camp on any of these issues and publicize it, and some folks cease to view you as approachable.  At the end of the day, being approachable by all is a big part of the job.

The same holds true for supervisors.  Pitch a political point of view that your direct reports disagree with, and a change in chemistry is likely to occur.   Let's say 9% of your direct reports feel pressure to conform to your point of view.  That's fine.  What about the other 91%?  They could think that you are 1) wrong, 2) attempting to use your position to influence them (without feeling pressure to conform), 3) telling them in your own way that they don't have a clue, or 4) <insert your own negative outcome here>.

Of course, you could bond with some as a result.  But the negative outweighs the positive in most situations....

HR Press Releases Gone Bad - Wal-Mart Takes Credit for Universal Heathcare and the Internet...

I'm not a Wal-Mart basher.  I shop there, and I'm not bothered by the big box store.   

But I'm glad I don't have to recruit for associates at the store level, because that would stink.  Not because they don't have good candidates coming through, but they have NO TOOLS to close them.  Comp is middling at best, customers are irritable about 90% of the time, and when you walk out the doors after your shift, you have to do that crosswalk dance where you try not to get run over as the Camry with the tunes turned up decides whether to gun it or be a nice guy 5 feet from the door...

But I digress...

The biggest issues impacting Wal-Mart's ability to recruit are Comp and Benefits.  Since I don't have data on the Comp side, let's look at Benefits.  Ever since that nasty memo came out, Wal-Mart's been on a PR mission to say things are improving.  That's a good thing.  But how good are things really?

Here's some data from a recent press release from Wal-Mart touting the fact that 92.7% of their associates have health care coverage:

"Associates surveyed cited the following sources for their health care coverage:

• 50.2 percent – Wal-Mart plan;
• 22.3 percent – Spouse;
• 7.3 percent – Uninsured;
• 4.3 percent – Medicare;
• 4.2 percent – Parents, school or college;
• 3.2 percent – Other/previous employer;
• 2.4 percent – Individual policy;
• 2.3 percent – VA or military;
• 1.9 percent – Medicaid;
• 1.2 percent – State program other than Medicaid; and
• 0.7 percent – Another source than those listed above.

Total: 100 percent"

So they have health care coverage.  But about half don't get it from Wal-Mart.  Oh, NOW I get it...

Hat tip to John Hollon on this one.  I had the press release in my inbox, then he had something up two hours later.  That's fast coverage I can't match.  But I agree with his analysis - the title to the press release, which touts 92.7 coverage, is opportunistic at best. 

That kind of stuff gives spin a bad name.  I think Wal-Mart's better than this. 

Pharma Rep Playbook - 4 Minutes with Doctors = 52% Jump in Scripts Written...

I want all of our employees to have the medical care they need.  Let's start there before anyone brands me as a fiscal hawk looking at numbers rather than employee well-being...

If there's one area of Medical care that drives me crazy, it's got to be big Pharma vs. doctors, patients, and yes, your local company medical plan. 

Big Pharma gets paid off of blockbuster drugs that they hold exclusive rights to.  That part of the system I get, since there are development costs tied to the R&D effort.  It's the repackaging of brand name drugs, once generics are available, that drives me crazy.  Hey, why take that generic every day?  We've just revamped the brand name equivalent with enough potency to last 5 days.   Uh, yeah... It'll cost your medical plan $1,000 more per year, but who cares?  Your employee contribution is the same regardless.

In case you needed more examples of the power of the Pharmaceutical Rep over most doctors, consider this article in a recent BusinessWeek entitled "Just Say No to Drug Reps":

"Dr. Adriane Ugh-Beman wishes more doctors would greet marketing pitches from drug companies with skepticism. So she is taking her message to medical schools. An associate professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University, she has spent the past six months lecturing med students at Georgetown and neighboring schools on how to resist sales reps' overtures, such as doling out free drug samples to physicians and bringing lunches for office staff.

Often, the audience starts out belligerent, Ugh-Beman says, protesting that they're "too smart to be bought by a slice of pizza." But that changes when "we correct them with the numbers," she says. A doctor who spends just one minute with a sales rep typically ends up prescribing 16% more of that rep's product than he or she was prescribing before. And a four-minute encounter is likely to prompt a 52% jump in prescriptions, says Ugh-Beman."

I didn't dig around on the net for the white-paper behind Ugh-Berman's claims, but I am assuming if it made BW, it's legit research.

Let's assume programs like this can prepare doctors for the drug rep pushing product.  No sweat to Big Pharma, because they've got an even more powerful marketing tool.   It's called the demands of their patients after watching 20 Pharma ads every night during American Idol... What's a busy M.D supposed to do when someone brings him an ad for Paxil during a routine visit?  Prescribe (gasp) exercise? 

Every seen a Viagra ad?   All they have to do is create a market with a couple of Billion dollars worth of ads, and all of a sudden the pressure is on to pick up the full tab for each new class of drugs that's introduced... 

Man, am I tired of scrambling for the remote during a basketball game on the weekend or during prime time when the Viagra ads come on (hello? kids are watching when these things run!).  But those guys throwing the football sure are accurate throwing it through that tire in the back yard... 

IBM Responds to FLSA Suit by Cutting Base Pay for 6% of Workforce....

Here's an ugly one for you....

In 2006, IBM got hammered in a FLSA suit, and was ordered to pay 65 million in unpaid, overtime, back pay to workers included in the suit, who were deemed to be incorrectly classified as "exempt".

With that in mind, you expect a company like IBM to reclassify those employees as non-exempt and start making them OT eligible, right?   

As expected, the good news for those workers is that IBM now plans to grant them non-exempt status so they can collect overtime pay.

The bad news: IBM will cut their base salaries by 15% to make up the difference.

IBM's taking this path with 6% of its total workforce...

In a move that is legal but full of employee relations potholes, IBM apparently looked at the entire situation, and decided to remain cost neutral by cutting base pay of the workers upon the transition.  That way, if the expected amount of OT comes in, the workers will be earning the same total compensation.

That's hardball from a compensation perspective.  Glad I'm not the HR Manager handling those conversations - "Ricky, we're moving you to hourly/non-exempt status.  As a part of that, we've taken your salary and converted it to an hourly rate, then reduced it by 15%, since that's the average amount of compensation we project you'll earn through overtime this year".

Ugh.   

The Patriots and Cheating - Can You Label an Entire Workplace Due to the Actions of a Few?

Last week I threw up a post telling all HR pros they should love the NFL's New England Patriots.  Great culture - no emphasis on stars, results through teamwork.

The feedback was immediate and split down the middle, with two camps chiming in:

Camp 1 - I agree with the assessment.  Patriots rule and they have a great workplace culture!

Camp 2 - You can't give the Patriots credit for having a team-based culture, because they were caught cheating during the first game of the season. 

First up, I get why Camp #2 reacts in that fashion.  The whole scenario of the Patriots taping to try and steal signals is unseemly, at best.  It's cheating, pure and simple.

But, I can't judge a whole workplace culture by the actions of a few.  In my article, I present the opinion that the Pats are different for four reasons - they use motivational fit to figure out the best talent that fits their organization, they can assimilate outliers, like Randy Moss with no disruption, their management is focused on results, not drama, and their whole culture is team-based.

All that remains true.  You can't label an entire organization on one incident, and the factors listed above are independent from that. Should we all be branded by the Accounting person who embezzles money from our company? By the Sales person who booked fake sales at your shop until he got caught?   

I'm glad I'm not judged solely by the outliers who have had legal trouble in the organizations I worked for in the past. That might be ugly as I look back. The Pats are 18-0, and "spygate" didn't propel them to that.  Their team-focused culture did...

PS - I offer up the mock "Cheaties" box for entertainment purposes only.  Amazing what low-cost digital tools allow consumers to do these days....

I Just Tried to Define Employee Engagement - Now I Need a Nap...

I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers". 

Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!); 

Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;

Point #3 - I now need a nap. 

WOW!  Was that some painful reading.  Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.

zzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz

OK, I'm back.   Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions.  His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named).  Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories.   Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.

For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.

I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post.  The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement. 

Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Here's Tim Wright's definition:

The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:

• Attention to task detail
• Commitment to assignment completion
• Involvement in special projects
• Communication willingly, effectively with others
• Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
• Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
• Innovation regarding processes and procedures

I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition.  In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.

Hit Tim's web site to learn more.  He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.

Check it out and answer that question for yourself....

Employee Surveys - Good Tool or Corporate Noise? Depends on the Questions and Follow Up...

In my HR career, I've been in organizations that did an employee survey every year, and in organizations that never used the traditional employee survey.  Along the way, I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of the divide.  I've also been in great companies/units that never surveyed employees.

The pro-survey crowd is usually focused on the assumption "we need to ask employees what they think and how they feel".  Hard to argue with that on the surface.  The logic is strong and as American as apple pie, baseball and Toyota Chevrolet.

It's the factions of the pro-survey crowd that do a survey because "it is the right thing to do" that hurt the cause.  Too often the item writing for the survey is lacking, with the focus on breakrooms, parking and perks employees would find valuable if the company could afford them.  Additionally, the employee survey as an "event of the month" without rigorous follow-up and action plans on the manager level, provides an easy target for those who don't see the value.  After all, you have to have the stomach for the journey and be willful and transparent in your follow-up, if you are going to ask employees what they think via a survey.

Jack Welch (formerly of GE and now riffing at BusinessWeek) recently listed four issues he thinks must be included if you decide to do an employee survey.  Among the areas Jack deems critical are the following:

1.  Do employees truly buy into the company mission?

2.  Do managers at the company "walk the walk" related to organizational values?

3.  Do employees feel the company is performing in areas like technology, innovation and other areas that drive customer acquisition, satisfaction and retention?

4.  Does the company create a culture where top performers are rewarded and valued?

That's a pretty good list, even if it doesn't include whether animal crackers are offered in the snack machines.  To hear more, download the podcast to your iPod here.

I'll end this post with this.  Regardless if you are a Fortune 500 or a 20-person startup, surveys can be a good tool,  But don't do a survey until you are positive you are ready to take the time to probe as an organization.  There are things worse than not asking - including letting the data sit on the shelf after you've asked your talent what they think....

Don't Just Pay Me - Pay Me Like A Rocket Scientist...

Remember that common cornerstone of childhood mocking growing up?  "What are you, some sort of Rocket Scientist"?

If you persevered though the taunts and actually became a rocket scientist, I bet you thought it would pay a lot more than it does.   From the Wall Street Journal:

The job: Aerospace engineer

The pay: The average annual starting salary for recent bachelor's degree graduates is $54,008, according to a National Society of Professional Engineers survey. Those with 25 or more years of experience average $121,679, the trade group says.

The hours: Eight-hour workdays, Monday through Friday, are common, though overtime may be necessary for time-sensitive projects.

Other incentives: "You get to see a lot of cool things a normal person would never get to see," such as stealth fighters and test sites, says Jonathan Nikkel, an aerospace engineer specializing in navigation theory for Raytheon Corp.

That's still pretty good pay for a college grad.  It's just that after hearing the intelligence-challenged openly mocked as "rocket scientists" growing up, I would think the market would bear more for this position.  After all, it's the standard by which raw intelligence (or lack thereof) is measured....

Managing the Font of Email Signatures - Now That's Value-Added HR Work....

When I got to my current company, there was a sheet in the orientation package that listed the company's protocol regarding email signatures in Outlook.   Mandated size, font, order of content, etc.   Total control - after all, you can't trust EMPLOYEES to make decisions about important details like this, right?

Wrong.  I ripped it up and banned the sheet from orientation and any other type of distribution.  But before you consider me the people's champion, understand it's for me as much as it is for them.

Allowing employees to do whatever they want with their signatures is not only American, it's natural selection at its best.  Consider the following:

1.  By allowing employees to "let their freak flag fly" when it comes to fonts and colors, you find out who the outliers are.  See an employee break out the Comic Sans in purple with a paisley background?  That's all you need to know.  Make sure the Christmas party is alcohol free for this person.

2.  Title inflation tells you who the Enron guys are - I love seeing who will add that little twist to their title, like the Customer Service Rep who will list their title as "Customer Service Representative - Reporting" because they pull the ACD stats off the printer at the end of their shift.  Just enough of a bump to feel a little bit superior.... and to pump up the resume (PS, with this crowd it's usually on Monster before you notice the title inflation).

3.  I don't need the Book of The Month club when I've got you laying down the quotes as a part of your signature.  Nothing says "Damn, I'm academic and philosophical" more than a good quote at the end of your signature.  What's that?  This week is something from Sun Tzu?   Sweet!  I was just thinking that business is a lot like ancient war, and you broke it down perfectly...

4.  Oops - This person doesn't have a signature.  What's that mean?  Probably a deep thinker who has disconnected themselves from the false status of titles.... Or, they don't know how to program a VCR.  Either way, I want to give them a big hug... They are my heros in world flooded with advertising, positioning and spin...

It's America, so you can do what you want with your email signature!!  Just know all your friends will be psychoanalyzing every letter, color and font from the cheap seats....

Why HR Pros Should Love the New England Patriots...

My latest article at workforce.com is up this week, and I'm in an NFL state of mind.  What's on my radar?  I think all HR Pros who follow the NFL, in even a passing fashion, should be in love with the New England Patriots. 

Not because they are 18-0, but because they epitomize teamwork.  Here's one illustration from my article of how the Patriots' organization gets the TEAM concept:

"The team theme rules, even when the system promotes stars. I’m from Missouri, which means I’m a St. Louis Rams fan. A few years ago, the Rams were hot and won the Super Bowl with the greatest show on turf (lots of passing and individual stars: Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, etc.). The next year they faced an upstart, underdog Patriots team in the early stages of the culture the Patriots have built. The game was getting ready to start, and I was watching the player introductions. The Rams went first, introducing the individual starters for their incredible offense one at a time. Next up, the Patriots started their introductions, and instead of shining the lights on their individual players for a little recognition and glory, they came out as a team and ran through the tunnel together.

I thought to myself, "That felt different."

Game over: The Patriots upset the Rams in the Super Bowl and it was the start of the New England dynasty. The Patriots still come out as a team to this day."

Love them or hate them, the Patriots are different. Not different like the Yankees, but different like in Jerry Maguire, when Jerry hugs Rod Tidwell in the tunnel after his breakout game.

Click over to the article at Workforce and check it out.  It's Super Bowl prep for Talent Management types...

The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers

I've been accused by others of being a workaholic.  Need proof?  Check out the comments to my past post on the wisdom of using an Out-Of-Office reply, where I was taken to task by those appalled that I dared to work on my blackberry while standing in a 60-minute line at Disney.   Trust me, peeps, standing in line at Disney isn't quality time with the nuclear family.  It's a taxing whinefest we would all be well advised to ignore through advanced technology.

More important to the question of my work habits, and yours, is the question of engagment.  Seth Godin penned a piece a few days ago that I thought was brilliant.   The thesis is that being a workaholic isn't defined by hours, but rather by attitude:

"A workaholic lives on fear. It's fear that drives him to show up all the time. The best defense, apparently, is a good attendance record.

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.

The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour. The passionate worker tweaks a site design after dinner because, hey, it's a lot more fun than watching TV.

It was hard to imagine someone being passionate about mining coal or scrubbing dishes. But the new face of work, at least for some people, opens up the possibility that work is the thing (much of the time) that you'd most like to do. Designing jobs like that is obviously smart. Finding one is brilliant."

We should all be fortunate enough to be so engaged in our jobs/careers that we actively seek opportunties to learn, regardless of time/location. 

This blog is a good example of working with curiosity.  Do I have to do it?  Nope.  Do I want to do it?  Absolutely, especially when I get reactions and thoughts from others I can learn from as a result.  That's where the power of engagement really comes into play.  It makes you want to work on the craft, and go back for more.

I know people who naturally bring that passion to their work.  I know another group of people who are rigid about the hours they work.  The interesting thing is that few of the individuals who are rigid about their hours are passionate about their work. 

Can people who watch the clock be engaged employees?  Or is engagement an intrinsic quality that some people have and others don't?

My take?  The naturally curious are always more apt to dream and be engaged, regardless of the job.  The rest of the crowd better work OT to find a job that matches their strengths, because if not placed in a perfect situation, they'll become clock watchers.

And once that happens, there's little that the employer can do to change engagement levels.

Look inward, clock watchers of America. 

"A workaholic lives on fear. It's fear that drives him to show up all the time. The best defense, apparently, is a good attendance record.

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.

The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour. The passionate worker tweaks a site design after dinner because, hey, it's a lot more fun than watching TV.

It was hard to imagine someone being passionate about mining coal or scrubbing dishes. But the new face of work, at least for some people, opens up the possibility that work is the thing (much of the time) that you'd most like to do. Designing jobs like that is obviously smart. Finding one is brilliant."

Ugly Stats on the Impact of Bad Diversity Training...

Want to hear some ugly stats?

A recent study found the impact of most diversity training efforts to be counter-productive, according to a comprehensive analysis of 31 years of data from over 800 medium and large US workplaces.

See a review of the full study results at the Washington Post.

Here are numbers - The kind of diversity training offered by most companies was followed by a 7.5% drop in the number of women in management, a 10% drop in the number of black women in management, and a 12% drop in the number of black men in management.   The study cites Asians and Latinos as suffering similar fates, even while pointing to the good intentions of companies embracing diversity training as a way to make their workplaces more inclusive and to cater to a more diverse workforce and customer base.

The analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed that mandatory programs -- often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding liability in discrimination lawsuits -- were the problem. When diversity training is voluntary and undertaken to advance a company's business goals, it was associated with increased diversity in management.   That's good to know, but hard to explain to the OFCCP when they want a list of your good faith efforts in conjunction with your Affirmative Action Plan...

So the next time you're doing Diversity training, you might want to roll out the demographics of your customer base as a part of the package...and <gasp> make it voluntary?

The Limitations of Succession Planning - Nirvana and the Foo Fighters....

I'm in a rock and roll kind of mood today.  As a card-carrying member of GenX, I grew up buying flannel shirts for nights out, which means the whole "grunge" scene was driving my fashion sense in college.   Looking back, all I was missing was a thick beard and I could have been a double on the set of Grizzly Adams.  Good times, but it was hard to look like you were having fun with all the angst in those grunge lyrics.

Over the weekend, I had two rock experiences.  First, we finally broke out Guitar Hero for the Xbox, which was a Christmas gift for my sons.   After handling Barracuda on "easy" mode, my wife and I headed to the arena for the Jimmy Eat World/Foo Fighters show, which was a blast.  From a wellness perspective, it was cool to see that holding up your lighter has been replaced almost entirely by holding up the LED screen of the wireless device of your choice. 

One connection to my GenX/grunge days from the night out was Foo Fighters founder Dave Grohl.  Grohl hit the rock/grunge scene in 1991 as the drummer for Nirvana, the band that has remained as icon for everything related to grunge.  At the time Nirvana was popular, Grohl was an afterthought, dramatically overshadowed by lead singer Kurt Cobain, and his crazy wife, Courtney Love. 

Like a big corporation with a famous CEO, Nirvana rocked on and changed the music scene for a couple of years, until the equivalent of the Nirvana CEO, Cobain, committed suicide amidst a struggle with depression and dependency.  The band dissolved, minus the leader who had defined them as an organization.  Grohl and the other surviving member of the band, Chris Novoselic (bass), went their separate ways.  No succession plan there...

Over time, Novoselic and Grohl started bands organizations on their own.  Novoselic's fizzled, but Grohl's project caught fire, with the Foo Fighters ultimately releasing 6 CD's since 1995 and being widely regarded as one of the best rock bands/brands active today.

My point - and there is one - is that Grohl was widely regarded as an afterthought in the initial flagship he contributed to (Nirvana).  Overshadowed in life and death by Cobain, Grohl used his skills to reshape his post-Nirvana career and develop an organization/brand deeper, more diversified and ultimately more successful than Nirvana. 

So the moral of the story is this - you have a Dave Grohl in your organization right now, a talent deeper and more creative than what's currently in the spotlight.  How do you find them and ensure they maximize their potential without having to leave your company?  Wouldn't it be cool if you could spot the high potential in your company and do something different with that talent? 

Of course, once you find a Dave Grohl, the problem is being brave enough to do something different with the talent.  Development of individuals in succession plans is difficult, mainly because as soon as you treat someone differently, you're putting them and everyone else on notice they are on the fast track.  That causes hard feelings and politics...

Most organizations don't fight that battle.  It's just easier to have everyone wear the same flannel shirt......

(subscribers reading via email or specific readers may need to click through for Foo Fighters clip below)

Flame or Fetal Position? What to Do When You Are Thrown Under the Bus...

Earlier this week I riffed about when interviewing gets put on the back burner.  You know the drill.  Positions are open, nerves are frayed, and it's your job to get the candidate flow tweaked just right.  Can't you make it rain already?  Where are the candidates?

So you hustle up and get the candidate flow rolling.  Then you close business.  But every once in a while, you have a hiring manager who says they are too busy to interview, even though the director of their department is rolling by your office every couple of days to check on status.  I popped off in my last post with some reasons why this type of hiring manager doesn't want to interview - some real, some tongue-in-check.

HR Wench hit the comments of that post with some great food for thought.  Reacting to Reason #5 why some managers can't make the time to interview ("Not being fully staffed is a great reason for missing some objectives.  Why rush?"), HR Wench exclaimed:

"I love it when the reason is #5 and then the hiring manager tries to tell their boss that they haven't filled the position because HR/Recruiting isn't sending them viable candidates. Enter my Outlook Sent Box. Now you're really in trouble!"

Ah, yes.  That's a standard morality play in any organization.  You're doing the best you can to generate candidate flow and actually have delivered volume, and hopefully quality.  Nothing happens, then word gets back to you that the hiring manager in question says they aren't getting help from you.

Ouch.  That's going to leave a mark...

Instinct #1 - Flame away, taking the thoughts of HR Wench to the extreme (more than she would recommend, but still the first instinct for most of us).  Copy everyone.  Gather round, kids, it's time for public humiliation.... It's flogging for the digital era... Gotta be tough on reputational terrorism.  Who could blame you?

Back in the day, I was all about the digital flame in those circumstances.  The rage kept me warm at night.  Over the past 5 years, I find I have mellowed considerably.  I'm much less likely to do the email flame with a bunch of CC's.  Instead, I'll answer the question truthfully when asked by the person's boss.  Maybe even seek the boss out for a little help to nudge the manager in question.  I guess I've learned to appreciate that everyone is under pressure, and sometimes it becomes a blame game to survive. 

Of course, the hardest circumstance in this area is when a rumor gets back to you that you're being sold out.  The boss doesn't come by to give you a chance to defend yourself.  Someone tells you you're being thrown under the bus.  Maybe they're right, maybe they have the context wrong.  What do you do?

Stay quiet?  Flame?  Perhaps a calm check-in with the hiring manager and boss to see if they want to set up a second round of interviews since the candidates were delivered 2 weeks ago? 

Now you're thinking!  Defend yourself creatively without flaming!  I imagine HR Wench could probably write a textbook on this.  Maybe I could write the forward.... "..I've never met the HR Wench, but the name really captures the essence of the professional behind the....blah, blah, blah...."

Doormats don't get invited to the table, so staying quiet in this circumstance isn't a long-term strategy.  But you have to mix up the intensity and find a way to deliver the message.  Flame every time, and you'll soon be tuned out.

Stay classy, San Diego....

Employee Relations 101 - Has Your Morale Killer (Terrell Owens) Turned the Corner?

If you've worked in HR for more than a year, you've dealt with this situation.  An employee has largely been regarded as a morale killer among other employees, but retained because he/she has "special skills" that are difficult to replace.  So, the company keeps them around as long as the production is there.

Over time, the production remains positive, but you gradually hear less and less about them being a cancer.  Maybe you even see them do something positive for another teammate.  Have they turned the corner?  Are they suddenly all grown up?  Do you trust them as you do other employees, or do you always remember how they lashed out at others when things didn't go their way?

So the world turns with Terrell Owens, NFL receiver Diva for the Dallas Cowboys.   After the Cowboys' recent loss in the playoffs, TO cried when it appeared reporters might question the judgment of QB Tony Romo.  Sure he was wearing shades when he did it - but he CRIED....

Nice, except it's hard to forgot how he assassinated former teammates, Jeff Garcia and Donovan McNabb.

What's your take?  Can you trust employees who have had scorched earth policies towards other employees in the past, or is the damage too extreme to recover from?

Take a look at the two clips (first is from his time with the Eagles where his agent had to hold the press conference for him, second is the emotional TO at the Cowboys' recent press conference) - and decide whether you would trust TO as a normal employee/citizen in your organization....

Hiring Manager Sabotage - What's It Mean When Hiring Gets Put on the Backburner?

Here's one I never get.  Hiring is critical at your company, and all parties are clamoring for candidates.  Like the progressive HR hack you are, you go get some candidates, get them phone screened and send sweet summaries to the hiring manager with recommendations.

Then you wait.  And nothing happens.  Then you follow up.  Once, Twice, etc.

Finally the message comes back.  "This month's not good for me.  I should be more open at some point in February."

Excuse me?  This month?  What happened to the critical need?  The epic struggle for talent?

(Disclaimer - I've had my share of searches where I had much difficulty sourcing.  I take full responsibility for those.  I just don't get why hiring managers can de-prioritize interviewing for months at a time, right after the siren goes off to get positions filled.)

Here are some thoughts of why the hiring manager doesn't want to interview for another 30 days, after you got rung up in a staff meeting about open positions:

1.  We migrate to what we are good at, and they aren't good/comfortable with interviewing.

2.  They've got a big zit on their chin, and they figure that time frame should be right for it to clear with a steady regimen of OXY-10.

3.  They've got a little bit of martyr in them, and they like doing it all themselves.  Think delegation issues. 

4.  That canker sore in their mouth is painful, so they're going with activities that don't require talking.

5.  Not being fully staffed is a great reason for missing some objectives.  Why rush?

6.  The candidates you are providing don't fit their needs, and you are so domineering you haven't thought to ask for feedback, and there's no way they can bring it up to you without getting beheaded.

Out of these answers, I think #1 is the most probable reason for the delay in most circumstances.  Most hiring managers aren't you.  They don't interview for a living, and it's easier to de-prioritize it than to deal with it and get it over with.

But I'm keeping a tube of OXY-10 in my bag, just in case someone needs it....

Fire the Jerk and Take A Nice Trip - My Wishes for HR Pros in 2008.....

My latest article is up at Workforce, so check it out.  I'm channeling Tony Robbins, Richard Simmons and Stuart Smalley all at the same time, because I know this is going to be a great year for you... Here's how it starts:

"I was going to fire up a column to start 2008 with my New Year’s resolutions as a U.S. HR manager, but let’s face it, by February, I’ll be in survival mode and most of the resolutions will be toast. So I’ll take a pass on making that list and just download some self-improvement audio on my iPod instead.

That doesn’t mean that we HR pros don’t deserve a great 2008. To the contrary, we’re due for a great year, kind of like the Red Sox in 2004 before they nixed the curse and won the World Series. With that in mind, I’m REALLY hoping this is your breakout year. So much so, I’m channeling a little Tony Robbins your way with the following heartfelt wishes:

--May this be a year without layoffs for you to administer on behalf of your company. If you have do layoffs, may you be blessed with a management team that understands the value of treating people with respect under such circumstances. May your process be free of rehire offers for less money, and may you be armed with severance packages greater than one week’s worth of pay.

--May you be invited to attend a swanky, company-sponsored, all-expense-paid junket of your choosing. May no one be surprised to see you, the HR pro, at said junket. May you personally not be surprised to have been invited and actually be attending."

Click through and check out the rest of my wishes for you in 2008.....

When Sticker Price in Medical Insurance Reminds You Of Buying a GM Car...

Bought a new car recently?  If so, you know sticker price is for suckers... Do two things - wait for the juicy rebates always offered by Detroit automakers, then head to the lot and try to dicker the sales people down even further.  That's right, the marketing machine of US automakers has conditioned us not to move until there's a $5K rebate involved off the top. 

Health care is similar in some ways, but different in some critical aspects.  First up, there's a sticker price that hospital facilities quote to the general public related to what different procedures cost. Think of that as their "sticker price".  Here's the big difference - rebates aren't available to everyone, just to the folks with quality health care plans.  The Blue Cross networks (as well as other big insurance providers) are able to extract HUGE discounts from doctors and facilities alike through the power of their network.  If doctors/hospitals want BCBS patients, they've got to be a part of the network, and to be part of the network they've got to agree to the fee schedule touted by BCBS. 

That's where the discounts/rebates come into play.  The rebates can be huge when compared to the sticker prices touted by hospitals.  Here's a new record in my world I just came across.  Employee goes in for a procedure, with the company billed 19K for the entire bill.  Sticker price from the hospital before BCBS got ahold of the claim and went all Tony Soprano on it?  $152K.  That's right - the sticker price was over 7 times the actual cost ultimately allowed by BCBS.

Which makes me think two things.  First, I'm glad we have a good provider that can extract deep discounts off of sticker price.  Second, the common guy out there who's not covered by a plan like ours and is trying to go without insurance is a car wreck away from a lifetime of bills he can't pay and a probable personal bankruptcy.

There's something wrong with health care when sticker price on medical procedures makes buying a car look like a "one price, no haggle" experience...

What Pecentage Increase Does It Take to Steal a Sales Rep From Your Competition?

Every time I think of sales reps, I think of Glengarry Glen Ross.  Always... Be... Closing.  Get them to sign on the line which is dotted.  Could it be that there is more to motivating sales reps than cash?

Ann Bares at Compensation Force has an interesting post up regarding the motivation of sales representatives.  Ann cites a recent Rewards of WorkSM (ROW) Study that points to the fact that sales reps may be motivated by more than just money.  Here are the details from the study:

The ROW Study found that sales employees, compared to non-sales employees, are:

• More engaged (57% versus 51%)
• More committed to their company (68% versus 62%)

And, of course,

• More motivated by compensation (82% versus 62%)

Moreover, they have:

• A greater sense of affiliation with their organization (67% versus 60%)
• Higher career satisfaction (57% versus 52%), and
• More trust in management (59% vs. 55%)

Interesting numbers, and Ann correctly points out that the data is worth pondering.  First up, Sales people ARE more motivated by money than your normal employee.   That's good to know.  I might have lost faith in the basic instincts of humanity if that were not the case...

More importantly, since sales reps put it on the line to sell your product/service everyday, they're more engaged, satisfied and committed to your company than other types of employees.   They also have a higher degree of affiliation with the company (and whatever brand you are selling as an employer) than other types of employees.

It's interesting data, and certainly contrary to the stereotype of the mercenary sales rep.  It's good to know that sales reps have all these positive attributes when it comes to engagement and affiliation. 

Here's the 64K question.  Look at the spreads noted above when comparing sales reps to all other types of employees.   The motivation of compensation still dominates the landscape, so what type of percentage increase will it take for the normal sales rep to give up the warm nest of affiliation and satisfaction for more money?

I'm guessing that number is 20+% if all other items (benefits, product, perks, etc.) are equal.

What's your number? 

Use This Handy Girl Scout Template to Sell To Your Co-Workers and Drive Your HR Person Insane!!!

A couple of weeks ago, I riffed on the difficulties of maintaining a balance between enforcing your non-solicitation policy and not being a buzzkill as a HR person.   The line is even more important based on the recent NLRB decision related to email.

Last week I was walking to the school bus stop with my son and did a quick check of my blackberry.  Guess what was waiting on me?  That's right, a blast email solicitation from someone I know asking me to buy Girl Scout cookies.  Oddly enough, I have never received one of these from an employee in a company I work for.  I guess those that blast the emails away are probably smart enough not to copy HR people on their marketing blasts.

Still, I didn't recognize the name and had a momentary increase in my heart rate wondering if one of our employees had used the "All Employees" distribution list to conduct their marketing campaign.  After further review, it was someone outside the company, but they were using their work email to conduct the campaign, including a bunch of people at their company.  So that's someone else's problem to deal with.

Message appears below with names and email address changed to protect the guilty... Plus if you ever want to mix it up with the non-solicitation policy, it's a nice template, good product positioning...

Once again people, verbal/casual conversations GOOD, email and bulletin board postings BAD when it  comes to ye old Non-Solicitation Policy....  HR people like organizations like the Girl Scouts, but trust me - 70% of all the people who got this email didn't want it.....

___________________________________________________________________________

From: Smith, Rhonda [mailto:rsmith457@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:58 PM
To: List removed by KD

Subject: Girl Scout Cookie ordering time is here!!!

If you haven't placed an order with a Girl Scout, please consider ordering from my daughter, Sally.

The cookies are $3 per box and payment due upon delivery the week of 2/11/08 - just in time for Valentine's Day!!!  For those of us dieting...these do well in the freezer for very long periods of time...hint...hint...

Your choice of cookies are:

Thin Mints: The most enduring and universally familiar Girl Scout cookie. These round, mint-flavored cookies covered with dark chocolate perennially sell the most boxes of any cookie. Thin Mints have never changed their name. Little Brownie Bakers and ABC Bakers both make Thin Mints.

Do-Si-Dos® or Peanut Butter Sandwich: A sandwich cookie. The round, bumpy perforated oatmeal cookie top and bottom surrounds a peanut butter-flavored layer inside. Do-Si-Dos® (formerly Gauchos) are baked by Little Brownie Bakers. ABC Bakers calls them Peanut Butter Sandwiches.

<List Ended early by KD - 9 other choices were listed, all with pictures.....>

Please let me know if you want to place and order and thank you in advance for your support for Sally and Troop 745!

Rhonda
___________________________________________________________________________

Work Culture Death Watch - The "New" AOL.....

Remember AOL?  That company used to rock.  Pay your $9.95 a month (only $14.95 for unlimited, or was it $19.95?), and you could dial in to that great "walled garden" of content and have that trendy @aol.com email address as well.  I held onto "Prodigy" (give a shout out if you remember that DOS-looking screen) for awhile, but finally moved over to AOL as well.

Then, broadband happened.  AOL first reacted as all market leaders do initially to critical threats, by  ignoring the trend and thinking their market leading position would get them through the storm.   Then, they thought that loyalty of all the users longing to hold on to their email addresses would stop the bleeding.  By the time they finally opened up content to non-subscribers, Google had already built the ad-driven model and figured out how to make money without subscribers.  And AOL has slowly become less relevant each month.

Need more evidence AOL is dead?  What if I told you that the CEO of AOL was asking employees to reach out to all their friends and tell them about all the cool stuff they can find by cruising AOL?  Still not enough?  What if I told you the same CEO was unsatisfied with the employee response to his request, and asked for examples of how they forwarded the marketing pitch, with those examples sent directly to him?

By now, you are surely grimacing.  But the story appears to be true according to emails forwarded to the Silicon Valley tech gossip rag, Valleywag:

"Before the holidays, AOL products chief, Kevin Conroy, urged employees to send a form letter to their friends, family members, and business contacts talking up AOL's new products. "Team, excitement about the work we are doing ... starts with each one of us," Conroy emailed. His top down directive did not spark any bottom-up fervor, it seems, as he had to forward the message again on Friday, asking employees for examples of get-out-the-users emails they'd sent."

If you are a glutton for punishment, you can also see the emails with the request and the follow up here.

Requests like this represent a work culture, and a company, in free fall.  Asking for your non-sales associates to push product kills morale and has the smell of death all over it.  After all, folks are in careers outside of sales for many reasons - one important one being that they consider the sales process very confrontational and it doesn't fit what they want to do professionally.

Still, I understand why a company in trouble would ask for the help.  All hands on deck and all that.

But, when you ask for proof that employees are pushing themselves on their friends, the end has to be near.   

Career Changes - Maybe HR to Pro Wrestling?

Here's the reality of the workplace - get your degree, then get ready to figure out what you want to do in life.  I started with a degree in exercise physiology and ended up in HR.  Nice traditional career path.  It just goes to show you - where you start out is rarely where you end up.

Most of you know that already, but I felt compelled to provide a glaring example that got pushed to me in the past couple of weeks.  Because it's CRAZY....but that's how careers work....

Consider, if you will, the case of Glen Jacobs.  A monster at 6'8", 260 pounds, I roomed with Glen in college and we were college basketball teammates at Northeast Missouri.  Obviously, Glen anchored our inside game, and ultimately was the best man in my wedding, which happened a long time ago, in a galaxy... you know what I mean.  A great guy and a great friend, although like a lot of friends, we don't get the chance to talk much anymore.

Here's the unique thing about Glen.  A monster physically, he is one of the nicest guys I have ever met.  Always calm, he remained patient while all the perimeter flakes (like me) were running around on the court, running their mouths and generally causing chaos.  A very smart guy, Glen was an English Ed major and ultimately graduated and did his student teaching.   People loved him, but the problem was that Glen got to the end of the degree cycle in 1991 or so and figured out he didn't want to teach.  That happens.

So, Glen ultimately used his skills in another area, first by volunteering across the Midwest, then using that experience to find paying jobs and ultimately climbing the corporate ladder to reach the heights of his chosen profession.  The industry?  PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING.  Glen's alter ego in the WWE is the character of Kane, who is the brother of the Undertaker, etc...

Take a look at the video below of "The Rock" and Hulk Hogan talking about him, then watch as Kane Glen enters the scene and performs.   Regardless of how you feel about wrestling, just know that Glen could easily be sitting in the cube/office next to you and you would love him as a teammate.  Cool guy, could babysit your kids.

Where you start is rarely where you finish... Having lived with Glen, this clip makes me feel like Charlie Heston in the Planet of the Apes when he looks up and sees the chimps on the horses....

(PG-13 Warning for posterior references for those of you watching at work....)

The Many HR Uses of the Word "Dude"...

I was watching the wild card playoff games in the NFL over the weekend.  The clear winner?  Not the Chargers, Jaguars, Giants or Seahawks.  For me, the clear winner is Bud Light and their series of "Dude" commercials, which show a specific person using "Dude" in at least ten different contexts in his life.

That got me thinking - how many different ways do HR Managers, Directors and VPs use the word "dude" in their day-to-day professional lives?  The number has to range in the hundreds, but here's my top 5 after doing a little brainstorming:

-After hearing of an event sure to result in a termination ("Dude" with a sense of disdain, slow head nod in the "no" motion)...

-In an effort to correct someone on the fly who is making a career limiting decision/statement ("Dude" with a sense of urgency and alarm, eyes wide open)...

-In a moment of weakness after seeing a large, self-insured medical invoice for your company ("Dude" with a sense of despair and an external locus of control, falling back in your chair from the upright position)...

-In an effort to get a little privacy when you are holding a private meeting with an employee and someone does a quick knock and walks in ("Dude" with a sense of disbelief, hand out with palm pointing upwards to show the fact you need a little privacy)...

-To confirm with hiring manager that you have found the perfect candidate for the open spot on their team (Walking into their office after both of you have interviewed the candidate and you're stopping by to compare notes.  "Dude" with both hands open as you walk in like you expect to hug it out)...

I'm sure you can think of others that rule your workday.  Hit me in the comments with your freshest example and enjoy the many meanings of "Dude" below...

Big Career Event Coming Up? Prepare Like Tony Romo and Relax in Mexico!!!

OK - Imagine this scenario with me.  You are a member of a project team at work with a single goal in mind.  Maybe it's a team in Product Development, maybe its a Major Account/Sales team that has been working on an RFP to sell someone like Exxon or Google a whole bunch of whatever your company does.  If your product launch goes well or you close the deal, you're a hero.  If it doesn't go well, the last 3/6/12 months of your life are a wash, and maybe you have to look for a new gig.

Got it?  Great...

Now flash forward - you've worked hard for 6 months and your are two weeks away from the big event - product launch or the final pitch to Exxon/Google.  In other words, CRUNCH time.   You call and email a member of the team for some details on an adjustment you are making to your piece of the project, only to find out the team member has taken a quick trip to Mexico for a little R&R before the big launch/pitch. 

That's right, the team member is in Mexico two weeks before the critical event you've been working towards for the last 6 months.  You slowly IMPLODE as you try to figure out how to get what you need.

Sound reasonable?  Yes?  No?  Sound far-fetched?   It happened to the Dallas Cowboys last week.  Two weeks away from the playoffs, and their quarterback, Tony Romo, heads to Mexico for a quick trip with a new girlfriend and a couple of teammates.  From NBC11 in San Francisco:

"Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo and pop star Jessica Simpson vacationing in Mexico just days before a playoff game.

The couple were vacationing in Los Cabos, Mexico, with a few friends, including fellow Cowboys Jason Witten, Marc Columbo and Bobby Carpenter. The photos show the group relaxing on a patio and Simpson spending time in the pool.

Dallas Cowboys head coach Wade Phillips instructed his players to take advantage of the first round playoff bye and to get away from football for a few days, NBC reported.

"People will look for blame if you lose and will basically let all that stuff go when you win because they don't think it was relevant and it isn't," said Phillips

Uh...That's right Wade.  You have to wonder if Phillips, in effect the manager for the team, isn't biting his lip once he got the news.   He encourages his players to get some rest and get away from the game, and his most visible team member takes that as an invitation to travel out of the country?  And with a girlfriend the shareholders (i.e., Dallas fans) are already concerned is robbing Romo of his focus.

If Terrell Owens is playing it safe, playing Xbox at the house in Dallas, I think the end may be near... TO is now the responsible one...

All this after a well-documented miscue in a playoff game last year (See clip below).   I don't think the trip has anything to do with performance, but man does it look bad if the Cowboys lose.  I just hope he drank bottled water exclusively.  Even then, there was probably a Giants fan (their opponent in the playoffs) down there trying to sneak him a bottle filled with tap water.