What? NASCAR's Not a Great Environment For Women Employees?

Here's the headline - "Former NASCAR Employee Files $225M Discrimination Suit". 

It's one of the uglier ones that I've ever read; I suppose that's where the lotto-like $225M number comes from. Read the listing of the allegations here - be prepared, it's ugly.  I first heard of the lawsuit reading Mike Haberman over at HR Observations, then was treated to a long article in the evening paper when I got home.

Hard to be surprised.   Male-dominated culture, macho industry with the goal of making cars go as fast as possible.  Doesn't sound like inclusion and sensitivity are top of mind for the gang at the track.

I've been in businesses where the majority of positions are blue collar males.  It's never pretty when a woman joins the ranks, but I've never seen or heard of anything approaching this one. 

One last thing - the claimant in this case was NASCAR's first minority female hire, part of a program called "Drive for Diversity".  She was fired in late 2007.

Magic Johnson personally brought her into NASCAR as part of the program....

I guess I'll end this by noting they are allegations at this point, and that NASCAR is denying she ever reported any of it through the proper channels.  Still, if the allegations are true, NASCAR's not only in a world of hurt, they've got a lot to fix moving forward. 

Not to mention, the brochures for the "Drive for Diversity" program probably need to be trashed - either way.  Nothing kills a company-wide program quicker than a $225M lawsuit...

Wii Fit - The Big Lie...

I know, I know.... Here comes the Grinch....(full disclosure - XBox 360 owner)

First up, let me say that I love the concept of Wii Fit.  As most of you probably know by now, Nintendo  recently released a new game pack for the Wii called Wii Fit.  It includes yoga, stretching and aerobic activities, all immersed in a cool video platform designed to make people have fun while exercising.  It even includes a way to calculate, track and compare your BMI to other family members pictured to the right (motivator or demotivator for the person with the biggest BMI?  I wonder).

It's cool, no doubt about that.  Here's the problem with Wii Fit - It's caught at the crossroads of fit and non-fit, at the intersection of "I don't feel like it" and "I already knew that". 

Here's the limitation of Wii Fit.  For those individuals who are currently exercising or go on/off exercise programs, the Wii won't be at the core of what you do.  For those individuals who never exercise, it's a fun motivational starter, but not enough to get you over the hump.

Why?  Because for a 230 pounder who wants to drop 30 pounds, two things are required.  Extensive cardio and diet discipline.  The cardio side is pretty simple.  Whether you run or walk, you have to pound out a certain amount of time/intensity to burn the calories necessary to knock off the pounds.  I know this technically could be done in the living room, but there are all kinds of reasons it won't be.

Burning up the required amount of calories on the Wii?  Your significant other wishes you would go "smell it up" outside, and of course, the plates and glasses rattling in the kitchen next door aren't a sustainable item either.

Then, just as you start to approach the threshold necessary to get some results, you start HATING the cartoon folks taking you through the workout.   Who could blame you... Just look at them, having fun, squealing, but having none of the accountability that goes with an elevated heart rate.  After all, they're CARTOONS - how could they possibly understand?

So the Wii Fit is cool, that's undeniable.  Too bad the road to a fitness turnaround is lined with the required discipline to go run/walk four miles, five times a week, and eat a six-inch subway once a day for 5 years.

See you at the gym!

The "Candidate Crush" - Snarky Definitions from the World of Human Capital...

Hang out with HR pros, recruiters, consultants or human capital vendors long enough, and you'll find the human capital space has a language all its own.

Here's the first installment in our series of snarky definitions from the world of human capital:

"candidate crush" (knd-dt, -dt) (krsh)

1. The condition that results when a primary recruiter for an opening is too positive on a specific candidate.  Rather than offering an honest assessment of the candidate's abilities compared to others in the candidate pool, the recruiter is more positive than logically reasonable, usually due to the candidate being similar to the recruiter in one of more ways.
2.  The condition that results when a recruiter or hiring manager values the attractiveness of a candidate over all other factors in a search.
3.  Physical discomfort resulting from shaking the hand of a candidate (male or female) with a manly grip.

Usage - "Brenda's usually good at filtering through candidates, but I think this one got through due to a candidate crush.  She went to the same undergrad as Brenda." or "Didn't John separate from his wife a couple of months ago?  Any chance a candidate crush is the reason the new manager looks like Britney Spears before the fall?"

What else would you expect?  Human Nature - we like people like us and we like people who look better than us. 

As long as their looks aren't THAT much better... That's a definition for a different day...

More Things Managers Should Learn From "American Idol"...

Best thing about writing a blog?  Reader feedback and add-ons.  If I could, I would make this thing a wiki and have the readers write the posts.  But readers would eventually catch on to that strategy.

That's why you're the readers.  You are the smart ones.

Case in point - my recent post on the 9 things every manager should learn from American Idol.  The comments were GOLD BABY, as evidenced by the additional thoughts on what managers could learn from the stylings of the oft-hated, but always heavily watched, show.

Other things managers can learn from "Idol", from the readers of the Capitalist:

From Steve - One of the things I noticed this year was that everyone was pretty talented and there were no Sanjayas to keep the buzz going on the fringe. The result: Viewers said this year was boring.   The lesson:"Don't get rid of the weird guy too quickly." His very presence may generate enough energy to keep the meetings interesting for the duration of a project.

From Paul - One thing is that even though Simon's criticism is hard and cold - everyone waits for his review. There seems to be more value in the criticism when there is no "fluff" involved.  Not saying we should be mean - but it's interesting that a thumbs up from Simon means more than a thumbs up from Paula.  Praise can be devalued if given too often and too easily. With all the discussion around Gen Y/Millennials being praise hounds it's important to know that scarcity of praise can have a benefit as well.

From Art - David Cook realized early on that it wasn't the judges he needed to impress, but the TV audience. After what he felt was unjustified criticism in one episode, he told Simon as much. Simon was offended, but David was right. In the final episode Simon said Cook had been knocked out by Archuleta, but the audience thought otherwise and voted Cook the winner. The lesson? The customers are your real boss.

Great stuff.  Thanks for pitching in with the cool perspectives!

Airlines Ponder Charging Passengers by Weight - Opportunity for Health Plans?

Nothing makes us challenge our assumptions like cold hard economics.  Need Proof?  The airline industry is said to be pondering charging passengers by weight.  It seems crazy until you remember that extra bags cost more for the same reasons, and the airlines are losing hundreds of millions of dollars per day due to the cost of fuel. 

Wow.  From Bloomberg News:

"Imagine two scales at the airline ticket counter, one for your bags and one for you. The price of a ticket depends upon the weight of both.

That may not be so far-fetched.

``You listen to the airline CEOs, and nothing is beyond their imagination,'' said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. ``They have already begun to think exotically. Nothing is not under the microscope.'' He declined to discuss what any individual airline might be contemplating, including charging passengers based on weight."

After U.S. airlines reported combined first-quarter losses of $1.7 billion and crude oil jumped to a record $133.17 a barrel on May 21, almost double from a year earlier, fares based on a passenger's weight may be a logical step, said Robert Mann, head of R.W. Mann & Co., an aviation consultant based in Port Washington, New York.

``If you look at the air-freight business, that's the way they've always done it,'' he said. ``We're getting treated like air freight when we travel by airlines, anyway.''

When you're losing millions on a daily basis, I guess there are no topics that are off limits.  Somehow I can't see the women I know stepping onto the scale and suffering the indignity of pulling out their credit card to pay the overage (disclaimer I just thought of in editing this - not that any of them would have to do that).  That would be ugly.  Guys on the other hand, would make a show out of rubbing their belly.  Venus vs. Mars at your local municipal airport.

Treating people differently based their individual stats is difficult, but worth examining.  If you are an employee who exercises, eats right and has positively impacted your health through your lifestyle, would you like to pay 30% less in medical insurance premiums when compared to someone who does nothing?

Sure you would.  The problem is the blowback that happens when the equivalent of the stick is presented to those who could positively impact blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc. through healthy lifestyles. 

And, that's why you probably won't see that coming to your company-sponsored health plan any time soon.

Is Google Squeezing the "20% Innovation Time" Rule?

Interesting notes on the Google culture of innovation from Valleywag via BW's Management IQ blog:

"Silicon Valley blog Valleywag had a post yesterday about "Google's Ever-Shrinking 20% Time." Google's now infamous management practice, which allows employees to spend 20% of their time working on projects of their choosing, is supposedly getting the crack down, according to the widely read blog. Not for everyone, apparently--just those whose projects are behind schedule. "A sensible management move," writes managing editor Owen Thomas, "but against the spirit of 20 percent time, which was meant to liberate creative employees from meddling middle management." It also reports Googlers are having a harder time getting side projects approved.

If Valleywag is right, it fits perfectly with what usually happens in a downturn: Innovation gets squeezed. Management cuts risky projects, ramps up efforts at efficiency, and cuts down on dabble time. Thomas raises a good question: Where does Google's management draw the line between making more time for delayed projects and meddling?"

It's hard to grow at 50% year after year.  Remember that today's Google is yesterday's Yahoo, and the day before that - Microsoft.  All things come back to the mean over time.

Still love the concept though.....Just like I still dig Yahoo and Redmond...

Your Employee's Tattoo Is Causing a Consumer Confidence Issue...

I know - Tattoos are a part of our culture now.  I have to accept the new norms and not judge people based on the old norms.  I don't have a Tat, and for the most part I don't judge.

Until money's involved.  Then, I think, the marketplace is the ultimate judge.

So, what about the economics of the situation?  Do consumers buy less from tattooed salespeople (selling normal products, so don't use the piercing shop as the example) than they do from a comparable salesperson with no ink?

There's a reason a lot of retail establishments have policies against visible tattoos, especially as you move up to higher end products.  Jason Whitlock thinks the economic advantage even applies to TV ratings, even to sports leagues:

"Over the next couple of weeks you'll hear lots of theories about why TV ratings are surging for the NBA playoffs.

But there's one issue driving improved ratings that likely won't be touched by all the NBA talking heads on TNT and ESPN.

Tattoos. Or rather the lack of tattoos in the conference finals.

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees.

The only accurate way to describe Garnett, Pierce, Duncan, Allen, Manu, Parker and even Kobe is "clean cut." Yeah, there are a couple of tattoos in that group — Duncan has something on his back, Kobe still has his post-rape-allegation tat — but the Lakers, Spurs and Celtics have far less ink on average than your typical NBA franchise.

I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits. You're wrong. Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people.

You just want to watch basketball and feel like you're watching people you can relate to a little bit, people you somewhat respect."

Remember - Jason Whitlock said that, not me.  I'm replaying it here because I'm interested in the economic impact of the tattoo.  Take the same talent, same knowledge, skills and abilities, same appearance and the same communications skills in two associates/salespeople.  One has a visible tattoo, one doesn't.  Who closes more business in a mainstream industry?  Who makes more over their career?

I don't know the answer, but I would love to see some research.  To hedge my bets in our household, I told my son while on vacation that having a visible tattoo cuts your career earning potential in half.

I have no idea whether that's correct or not, but I've already learned that personal finance connects with my son better than "my opinion"... He's 8 - god help me when he becomes a teenager...

Calling Out a Liar As a Manager or HR Pro....

Deep thoughts day here at the HR Capitalist.  Deep topic of the day - calling out a liar as a HR Pro.  Seems simple and legit, but like so many things, as you peel it back, it becomes, well...complicated.

My friend Lisa over at HR Thoughts got me started thinking about this topic with the recent short post she did.  You've been there, so I have I.  So has anyone who's ever been in the workplace, working with people:

"There are times when what I have to say must be heard. There are times when I just want another person to know that I know they are not being truthful. There are times I want to take my stand, have my say and to h*** with the consequences. There are times when I choose to take this on. There are times when I do not. Is it wisdom that guides me when I choose to save it for another day?

Or am I falling down on the job?"

Are you falling down on the job as a HR pro when you know someone is lying and don't take it on?  Most of us have felt that burden at some point in our careers.  Like Billy Joel, we didn't start the fire.  It was always burning since the... you know what I mean. 

I think you can compartmentalize how you handle lies you encounter in your role as a HR Pro.  First up, lies involving Fraud, Harassment, and other things your company has a no-tolerance policy towards are are pretty easy to handle.  You attack those, confront, and close the issue down.  That's your job, and you can flex it when you need to, especially in the obvious situations.

It becomes much more gray once you move onto other situations.  What's the lie about?  Can you disclose the source of the "truth" or is it simply your opinion (even if you are never wrong..).  What's at stake with the decision the lie is influencing?  Is it a throwaway, or an important item?  What's the political power of the individual you are calling out?  Are you going to get hurt?  Do others have your back?

Once you sort through that PERT chart, do you have the ability to get the decision/action that's in the best interest of the company changed without calling out the lie?  If so, what's your motivation for calling out the lie?  The right thing?  Ego?  Protection of others?  You're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?

It's a complex decision when to call out someone who's lying within your role as a HR Pro.  Proceed if you must, make sure you don't get hurt and live to fight another day.

Pick your spots.  If you've struggled with the question and have the skill to ponder the questin, business needs more HR pros like you...

Thinking About Subsidizing Gas Prices for Employees? Consider the Cautionary Tale of Facebook...

Gas prices keep going up.  Does anyone really believe they are coming back down?  Surely you jest...

Which means the pressure is on many managers and HR Pros to become advocates to assist employees with the cost of their commutes.   I wrote about this a few weeks ago and threw out some thoughts on the best ways - and the worst ways - you can help. 

My vote for the worst way to help?  Provide a guarantee on the price of gas, creating a program that states the company will reimburse employees for gas prices that exceed a specific per gallon cost for travel on their normal commute.

Why are subsidies a bad idea?  Because if gas prices aren't coming back down, at some point you'll eliminate the subsidy, which by that time will have become an entitlement.  Think it won't happen to you?  It happened to Facebook recently, focused on housing subsidies in the pricey real estate market of Palo Alto, CA:

"Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook CEO) must be glad he's at the D6 conference in Carlsbad. Another reason the sensitive CEO skipped town? He may not have wanted to see the disappointment when his employees learned that the company would revoke a cherished $600 housing subsidy for those living near Facebook's downtown Palo Alto headquarters. Since reporting the news yesterday, more tipsters tell us the subsidy slash is real. According to one, new employees will get no housing subsidy and as soon as current employees sign new leases with their landlords or decide to move, they lose theirs too."

A subsidy is a subsidy.  The danger in creating one in the workplace is the folly that it will be short-term, which it never is.  At some point, the company or unit in question has a rough quarter/year, and you have to take the entitlement away.  Then your good-willed gesture becomes an employee relations mushroom cloud.  Which is what will ultimately happen to any company that initiates a gas price subsidy for commuters.

If Facebook pulled back a subsidy, what hope do you have?  They have a CHEF, for crying out loud...

Think car pooling and telecommuting....

Management 101 - Channeling Kimbo Slice as a Motivational Technique...

Great post last week by John Hollon on a time tested management technique - blowing your stack to get someone's attention in the workplace.  Let's call it the Kimbo Slice...

John breaks it down for us using Danica Patrick as a role model at www.workforce.com and The Business of Management:

“Briscoe clipped Patrick’s car as she was leaving pit road with 29 laps left last Sunday (Indy 500), inflicting enough damage to take both drivers out of the race,” wrote columnist Richard Durrett in the Dallas Morning News. “A frustrated Patrick jumped out of her car and briskly walked toward Briscoe’s pit stall, taking her gloves off as she went as if planning to send a stern message when she arrived. But security steered her clear.”

Blowing your cool and getting angry, on occasion, especially if it is done in a very focused and specific way, can pay big benefits for a manager. To wit:

1. It gets everyone’s immediate attention;
2. It crystalizes an issue in people’s minds as something of unique significance and great importance;
3. It draws a line in the sand about what you will tolerate, and what you won’t; and,
4. It sends long-lasting ripples through the workforce about how deeply you care about the work at hand."

Hollon's right.  Of course, you can't be a one-trick pony as a manager.  If rage is your normal reaction, no one's going to see the difference.  You also have to watch the posturing as if you want to fight.  In some industries (think manufacturing, cable, basic training and anything with a high concentration of blue collar workers), you might find yourself circled by the rest of the team as the object of your scorn circles you, waiting for the appropriate moment to break your nose. 

That would be counterproductive to your performance mission as a manager.  Maybe you should stick with email...

For now, let's enjoy my favorite clip of a workplace meltdown...Mr. Denny Green! (Mild language alert)