New eBook: The 8 Man Rotation (Who Says Sports and HR Don't Mix?)

Today marks the release of The 8 Man Rotation, an ebook focused on the intersection of talent management and sports.

Put together by Matthew Stollak with contributions from Steve Boese, Lance Haun, Tim Sackett and myself, along with forwards from Bill Kutik and Laurie Ruettimann, it’s an excellent resource for anyone looking to get some more of the game into your talent management strategy (or just a good reason to read about sports while on the clock). You can read it online or download your own copy.

Go get it.  Seriously, what are you waiting for?  It's a peanut butter and chocolate like combination....

The 7 Biggest Lies In Recruiting...

In DC today doing the opening keynote for recruitDC.  Topic: The 7 Biggest Lies in Recruiting.  

Check out one of the scenarios below.  Can you pick out the lies in this rundown of Rick?

"The Story:  Rick is a Sr. Account Executive for Kruk Brothers Recruiting.  As a member of the Kruk team, Rick has been a high performer, making the President’s Club for Sales (given to those who hit 200% of quota within the budget year) every year he’s been a part of the company.  Rick is directly responsible for 19% of the recurring revenue that exists in the 10M Company, and he keeps adding to that stack.

More on Rick’s pitch:  Rick makes sales for Kruk Brothers because he’s goooooooood.  Rick learned early in his career never to lead with the actual price, and he’s quick to tell you how the Kruk Brothers recruiting team is different.   What’s that?  You want to know what he says?  OK… The team is hardworking, they’ve got recruiters specializing in every vertical that’s important to your company, they’re in touch with the best candidates in the areas you need and they’ve got a sourcing group that does nothing but locate hard to find candidates.   If you want to engage Kruk Brothers, get ready to enter into a retained search agreement that’s going to cost you at least 30%.  Rick drives a 700 Series BMW to work that has fantastic integrated Bluetooth.

Hint: He really does have fantastic integrated bluetooth in that car.  So, that's not the lie...

Screw Up Access To Your HR System? Write Up Everyone Who Dared to Take a Look...

Let's face it - there's nothing scarier to an HR pro than a digital error of severe magnitude.  You know the one I'm talking about - the document that goes out to the masses that has too much information in it.  Pay data being slung around a location that was distributed on your watch.  

And of course, wide open access to a HR system that should have been locked down to HR only, but rank and file employees find themselves with access to it.  One employee tests it out (never thinking they'd get in) and presto!  They're in.  

They immediately tell two people.  Those two people tell two people, and well, you know how this is going to end.  The thing mushrooms to critical mass until someone at the top of the mushroom cloud tells someone in HR, who moves in a panic to shut the access down.

Too late.  Angel over in Accounts Payable now knows that your CFO has two garnishments and a court order against him from his first marriage.  That's going to leave a bit of a mark on the creditability of the HR shop.

Think it never happens?  It happens more than we'd like to admit. Check this out regarding the Chicago Police Department from the Chicago Sun-Times:

"More than 1,000 Chicago police officers could face discipline for viewing the arrest reports of two fellow cops accused of assaulting a North Side woman.

Police department officials said Saturday they are investigating why so many officers accessed the arrest reports, and said the officers could face disciplinary action. The police union, however, says the officers did nothing wrong.  According to a memo sent department-wide Wednesday by the Internal Affairs unit, accessing the electronic report constituted “misuse of department equipment.” The memo warned that “access of information for personal or other reasons is strictly prohibited.”

The memo said officers had accessed and printed the reports “without reason or authorization to do so.” It recommended that those officers receive a written reprimand that would stay on their personnel record for a year."

Whoops.  You messed up on access to the system and your first reaction is to...wait for it... write them all up.

Wrong answer.  Good luck with that one, especially with a union involved.  Wipe the egg off your face, do a systems security review and move on.  

Here's the memo on the recommendation to write everyone up.  Classic.  It's them, not us.

Microsoft Provides More Fodder For Those Who Hate Performance Reviews....

It's trendy to say that performance reviews are broken and must be eliminated from corporate life.  What the people who call for an end to performance reviews won't tell you is that they don't have any good ideas on how to make the feedback loop better.  After all, the primary problem isn't the system, it's the coaching skills of the managers you have in place to deliver feedback.  

Repeat after me:

Managers = Feedback Delivery System

IF <your managers suck at giving feedback>/THEN <it doesn't matter how you deliver feedback, it's going to suck>

I feel better for getting that off my chest.  Thanks for listening.

But wait - there's more.  Microsoft just provided more ammo with its revamp of its performance review system.  Check out the flavor from the Seattle Times:

"Microsoft said this morning it is overhauling its performance review system for 89,000 employees, and the new system echoes the old performance system Microsoft used for ranking employees before 2006.

The new rating system assigns each employee a level of 1 to 5. Each level has a set compensation level tied to it, which employees can check out now on the internal Microsoft human resources website. Performance reviews have not yet taken place this year, however, so employees will not know what kind of raises they will receive until later this year. 

Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer wrote in an email to all employees Thursday: "These ratings will be based on the results you accomplished during the review period (assessed against your commitments), how you accomplished them, and your proven capability. Ratings will be a simple 1-5 system with relative performance being assessed across common peer groups."

I'm a Microsoft lover, not a hater.  I'm a PC.  But for the love of Shatner, does anyone have any new ideas?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Here's a rundown of what the system replaced, along with how 99% of people react to this type of change from a blogger called Mini Microsoft:

"The 2006 system replaced a system called the "Commitment Rating," which was a numerical scale ranging from 2.5 to 5. That scale also limited how many employees could be rated by managers at any level, because the number of employees who could receive a top score was fixed. Raises and bonuses were tied to the ratings.

Mini Microsoft, an anonymously written blog about working at Microsoft, posted this about the new performance reviews: "... Let's celebrate saying goodbye to the 10% / Limited rating. Since the 10%-ers were not actually fired you ended up keeping people on staff who were designated as now plateaued and limited in there [sic] career at Microsoft."

The blogger compared the new system announced Thursday to the pre-2006 system that ranked employees from 2.5 to 5: "Old school: with respect to the new Scarlet A, I assume that a 4 is the old 3.0 and that a 5 is a 2.5 and that having either a 4 or a 5 now limits other group's interest in your career, which kind of means that we've gone from making 10% of the employees unattractive to making 20% of the employees unattractive."

New ideas?  Anyone?  PS - don't say we need to abolish the review unless you have a master plan on how you're going to fix the feedback delivery system in your company.

Maybe the best thing is to roll with it and hand out T-shirts that say things like "I'm a three".

Hating the Game... Referrals From People Who Just Quit...

John resigned and left a couple of weeks ago.  It was on good terms, but you recruited John and feel some of the sting.  After all, you needed him in that role and went out and got him.

He left you hanging - he left for what he considers a better opportunity before spending a year at your company.

Free Agent Nation my #$$.  What ever happened to working through the bumps? Cue the music from the Godfather...

Then, the email comes.  John's got a candidate for his former role.  The cynic in you flares up and retorts the following to no one in particular:

-Let me get this straight, you left before spending a year and feel connected enough to refer someone on the inside track?"

-"Why would I want another you?  You left me hanging"

-"No #$**# thanks, John"

You're wounded and walking with a noticeable physical limp from the resignation.  It'll be a cold day in hell before you take that referral seriously, right?

Not so fast, Kemosabe.  Your heart is in the way of your head.  You're forgetting that:

-John was in the role.  He knows what's required in the job.

-John knows more about your culture than any outside referral source.  Assuming he knows the referral on some level, he's more than likely making some type of match to the type of company you are.

-Most importantly: Even though John left too soon, he cares enough to refer someone to you. 

You know that some folks refer anyone and everyone with a pulse to you.  If John is "that guy", then discount the referral. 

But - if John's a legit referral source and cares enough to match after he made a quick decision to leave, you need to check your emotions at the door and vet the candidate.

Don't hate John (the player), hate the game (free agent nation).  Until you rip someone else from another company, at which point you are the game.

Ironic.

Four HR Skills Critical in Turning Around a Crappy Culture...

Your new CEO shows up and observes for 30 days.  One of his conclusions at the end of the observation period: The culture is broken and needs to be fixed. Your HR team is going to lead the effort and help drive the change.

What an opportunity. And what an opportunity for disaster.

Of course, if creating or fixing a company culture that delivers true employee experience were easy, everyone would be doing it. It’s hard, and it requires the commitment of your C-level executives and HR pros who can do more than just process transactions or plan the next company outing.

What skills does an HR pro need to help your company implement a positive, performance-oriented culture? I’ve got a list of four, and they’re not easy to find in the world of HR.

Go hit my recent column at Workforce Management to get the list and see if you have what it takes...

FOLLOW UP: Does This Leader Belong in Jail? (Not Jail, But It's Messy...)

OK, HR fans.... Friday I posted the following scenario and asked if this Leader belongs in jail....  Here's the scenario again, notes after the jump:

The Story:  Bill’s a SVP of operations in a telecommunications company that provides a triple play to their customers – voice, data and video services.  He’s risen through the ranks from his humble beginnings as an installer to manage the operations arm of a region that consists of 25% of the company’s total subscriber base (no easy career feat in a company that does 1B in revenue annually).  A sound operator with immense knowledge of the business, he’s lauded by the C-level for his determination to make budget every quarter and every year.

The Problem:  Complaints are starting to roll into corporate HQ about a specific policy implemented by Bill in his region.  Bill has directed every local operation under his command to give him status updates on Accounts Receivable and Customer Aging, which he accumulates and then sends edicts out to the field related to when customers can be disconnected, sometimes waiting until bills are 120 days past due to disconnect the service (the standard is 45 days).  Complaints about the business practice run hot and generally accuse Bill of ethical issues related to the business practice, which keeps his subscriber count artificially high at quarter’s end.  Bill makes the numbers but has 18 complaints against him at HQ for the practice.

Does he belong in jail?  No.  Some notes on the business side:

1. In a subscriber based business like telecom, the decision on when to cut off customers is a business decision that's not dictated by any law.  Bill has the right to direct his operation in the way he sees fit, and he can keep the customers on for as long as he wants.

2. Assume that Bill has the autonomy from corporate to handle this the way he wants as long as he hits the numbers.  Since analysts follow subscriber trends in subscription-based businesses like wireless, cable and other services that are billed monthly, subscriber count is something that Bill has to manage.

3.  However, the practice is not without financial detriment.  Bill has to make a choice - the longer he keeps deadbeat customers on the active list, the more bad debt those customers run up.  Bad debt is billed revenue to customers that ultimately can't be collected.  If a customer runs up a big bill and can't pay (much more likely the longer you wait to disconnect), it gets "charged off", and goes in to bad debt, at which time it's booked as an expense in the financials.  

So legally, Bill can keep the customers on as long as he's willing to put on his big boy pants and accept the bad debt write-off, which hurts his profitability in future quarters.  Odds are here that Bill is choosing to manage subscriber count this quarter, and the focus will change as the bad debt comes due on his financials.  It will have to.

But, even though Bill is within his rights to do this, the 18 complaints are based on both perception and reality:

1. Perception.  The people in the field think Bill is crooked because he's carrying out a business practice that goes way outside of the financial norm of cutting people off at 45-60 days.  Bill likely hasn't done a good job of explaining why he's doing what he's doing.  He probably can't, because saying, "I'm trying to hit the numbers for us this quarter" doesn't resonate with the little folks who have to live it every day in the field.  It's an understatement to say communication is tough in this circumstance.

2. Reality.  Here's the real reason the complaints are rolling in.  While many of the folks feel like Bill is shady and crooked in what he's doing, the big reality is that doubling the time customers get before you turn them off kills the employees in the field.  You're basically training your customers to not pay you on time.  The collections agent for the company calls and says, "you either have to pay or you're running the risk of being disconnected."  That message was strong when the company cut people off at 45 days.  However, the customers have received the same call 3 times and they now carry a 4 month bill and nothing has ever happened related to disconnect.  That's where the reality on the street meets the perception of Bill being crooked, and the pressure results in the complaints.

Like Run-DMC once said:

"It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time
It's Tricky...it's Tricky (Tricky) Tricky (Tricky)
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time
It's Tricky...Tr-tr-tr-tricky (Tricky) Trrrrrrrrrrricky"

Does This Leader Belong in Jail? We Report, You Decide...

It's Friday, so what better time to talk about "gray area" stuff in your organization?  Here's a tasty tidbit we used at the BCHRMA show yesterday to show the conflicts HR leaders find themselves in related to values vs. results:

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Story:  Bill’s a SVP of operations in a telecommunications company that provides a triple play to their customers – voice, data and video services.  He’s risen through the ranks from his humble beginnings as an installer to manage the operations arm of a region that consists of 25% of the company’s total subscriber base (no easy career feat in a company that does 1B in revenue annually).  A sound operator with immense knowledge of the business, he’s lauded by the C-level for his determination to make budget every quarter and every year.

The Problem:  Complaints are starting to roll into corporate HQ about a specific policy implemented by Bill in his region.  Bill has directed every local operation under his command to give him status updates on Accounts Receivable and Customer Aging, which he accumulates and then sends edicts out to the field related to when customers can be disconnected, sometimes waiting until bills are 120 days past due to disconnect the service (the standard is 45 days).  Complaints about the business practice run hot and generally accuse Bill of ethical issues related to the business practice, which keeps his subscriber count artificially high at quarter’s end.  Bill makes the numbers but has 18 complaints against him at HQ for the practice.

------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you do with that one?  Does Bill have an ethical issue?  If you have Integrity as a company value, is Bill killing you with his moves in the field?  If he doesn't have an ethics/integrity issue, how do you communicate that to the folks who are complaining without it appearing that you're simply enabling someone who will do anything for results?

Like Run-DMC once said, it's tricky.  More on this one next week.  Hit me in the comments with what you think.

 

Corporate Values: It's Complicated...

I'm in Vancouver today speaking at the BCHRMA's (British Columbia Human Resources Management Associations) annual conference.  The topic?  Corporate Values.

My take on corporate values is that it's complicated.  We all feel compelled to put up hard to measure values like integrity and expect that it filters down to the troops via our managers of people.  Meanwhile, countless companies actually have values like integrity embedded in their performance systems, expecting their managers to <shudder> rate employees on how they're doing from an integrity standpoint.

Integrity is super-important.  But how do you rate someone on that who has never had an integrity issue?

Manager: "Jimmy, I gave you a meets on integrity.  You're doing great."

Jimmy: "A meets on integrity?  Really?  I have high integrity.  What do I have to do to get an exceeds?"

Manager: "Umm.  Well, I guess in order to get an exceeds, I'd need you to report things you see that you think aren't right."

Jimmy:  "So I have to be a whistleblower to get an exceeds on integrity?"

I've actually had that reported back to me in the past.  The flip of that is that the manager just caves in and gives the exceeds, so everyone is happy but no conversation of value has actually been exchanged.  Which is not necessary a values issue, perhaps it's simply a performance management issue.

I'll be sharing some research that outlines the most frequently cited corporate values across 100+ companies, but more importantly, I'll also be sharing some research that shows which values the following stakeholders value most and want to see in corporate value statements:  a) the average employee, b) managers of people, and c) high performers.

As you might expect, they all want something different.  Certain groups want values that underscore performance, others want the high-end values like integrity.  Who do you please in that situation?  What gets you the most (pun intended) value as a company?

Say hi if you're at the show in Vancouver today!

Capitalist Definitions: "Lick The Cookie" at Your Company...

licking [ˈlɪkɪŋ] the [thē] cookie [kk]

1. To stake your claim, real or otherwise, on a unit of property, thought or idea within an organization in a manner where no one else can use the object or thought in question.

Explanation from a Fortune article on Steve Balmer and Microsoft:

"Inside Microsoft it's known as "licking the cookie." That's when a group within the company, typically Windows, declares its intentions to work on a feature or a product, thereby preventing others within the company from taking it on. Often it makes sense for Windows to own a project, says a former Microsoft manager who still does consulting work for the company, but it also slows down development at a time when tech companies can scarcely afford to be piggy.

Others talk about what a few former employees call the "made men" -- those who earned their bones during the 1990s when Microsoft was riding high and now can do no wrong, even as they bungle decision after decision. "You want to innovate in mobile?" said a former top Microsoft engineer named James Whittaker before leaving to take a job at Google. "Then deal with the made men who run the relevant cartel. And if they don't like you or your idea, your innovation goes nowhere."

Nice.  Happens all the time outside of Microsoft as well.  Some relatively harmless ways people inside your company currently "lick the cookie":

1. Reserving conference rooms they don't need.

2. Swooping in like Vultures on the tech tools that a departing team member leaves at their cubicle.

3. Taking a piece of cake from the kitchen that you're not sure when you'll have time or the appetite to eat.

And some more counterproductive cookie-licking ways that probably cause your company to move backwards:

1.  Managers saying that key people on their team are unavailable for promotion or lateral moves - they're just too important.

2.  Managers moving in within a matrixed environment to engage associates on projects that they may or may not need their help on.

3.  Being territorial and saying or acting in ways that suggest you're the only one who can do a certain job.

4.  Knowledge hoarding so you can't effectively be replaced - damn the cost to the business.

5.  Spending budget on things you don't need so you get the same budget amount next year.

6.  Anything product related similar to the Microsoft example...

Call someone out on licking the cookie today.  They deserve it.

What did I miss?