I have watched too many loved ones struggle with alcohol so I do not drink. (I too engaged in the past in enough to cover me for a while) Plus, I like bringing my "a game" and I cant do that when I am hung over! What advice would you give to someone who feels their career advancement has been negatively impacted for not "going drinking with the boys" - or "having a few with the team" - I used to excuse myself and pull aside the bar tender or server and ask them to bring me glasses of apple juice (since lt looks like beer) but that can be tough to pull off
Good question. There's always the threat of not being on the inside of team dynamics if you don't drink. I think your instincts are right, you have to engage and be there if that scene is important at your company/within your team. Here's my list of thoughts related to how to deal with it:
1. Have a drink in your hand but nurse that ****** ****** all night long. Get a beer in a dark ass bottle (going with the technical term there) where no one can see the consumption level and make it last two hours. By rounds for others, it will take the focus off the fact that you're running at a clip of one drink per 4 hours.
2. Drink O'Douls. Get a glass to go with it and pour it out of the bottle in a sneaky fashion. Drink the fine pilsner that was never meant to be consumed in volume all night long. Go order it at the bar, pour it in your glass and come back to the group. Act like a fool after three to sell it. Mmmm. #odoulsgoodness
3. Organize drinking outings for the team. You get more grace if you're the equivalent of Julie on the Love Boat. If you don't know who Julie was, let's just say she was the social director on a cruise ship. You should buy the first round as well. You can get inside the team without drinking if you're willing to organize and spend a little bit.
Why is the Love Boat not a Will Ferrel movie?
Option #1 is always best.
That's what I got. Can you make a beer last 3 hours? I can!!
Stereotypes. Sometimes they're out there because they're true.
The safest place to talk about stereotypes in the workplace involving race and gender is to to talk about the demographics you belong to.
I'm a white guy, so I'll give you a workplace stereotype that is 100% true - and curious - about white guys.
White guys who have reached a certain level in their career ALWAYS have a blue blazer as a core part of their wardrobe.
Book it, Dano. It's true. White guys buy blue blazers in their 30's and 40's like most women of the same age watch the Lifetime and Home & Garden channels on TV. Which is to say early and often.
Why do white guys matriculate to blue blazers? I'm basically a workplace anthropologist, and here's what I've learned about white guys and blue blazers:
--Younger white guys buy blue blazers as a form of modeling the behavior of their older white guy elders...
--At a certain earning level, people of all genders and races start becoming customer facing - either in a sales process or in client work. The blue blazer represents the lowest common denominator in corporate dress - you can put a tie with it if necessary or you can dress it down. Nobody ever got fired back in the day for buying IBM - and no one every gets fired for showing up with the blue blazer.
--The blue blazer is a staple that allows for flexibility across companies. Look at any private equity or venture capital firm on the high end of the earning tree and you'll see the blue blazer. Look anywhere on the lower end of the services and consulting chain and there it is - white guy in the blue blazer. Check.
--You can show up to any meeting and immediately adjust. Blue blazer in play as you walk in and find everyone is wearing jeans? Just pop that blazer off and... wait for it... I was prepared for this because now I'm sitting there in a dress shirt with no tie and my shirts sleeves rolled up. I did that before I walked into this meeting. I'm just like you guys and gals - except for the fact that I have a blue blazer - which is now on a side chair.
--There are some subtle differences across ages. Old guys love a blue blazer with gold buttons and generally have it tailored. Younger guys generally go blue buttons and make fun of the gold button crowd.
Nothing says professional white guy like a blue blazer. If you're a white guy and see another white guy in a blue blazer, give him a nod like the members of Project Mayhem did to each other in Fight Club. If you're not a white guy, just grin when you see one of us doing what we do.
"As I’ve written about before, one of the most ridiculous things I think recruiters do is to submit the first few candidates they’re able to source and screen who meet the minimum qualifications for the position.
Many recruiters slate candidates with the goal not of finding the best talent on the market, but the first talent on the market you could find who was qualified, interested and available.
They find 5-7 potential fits who look good on paper and sound compelling enough over the phone to pass ahead to the hiring manager, and then move onto the next req without ever looking back to see if any better candidates might be out there.
If a hiring manager agrees to interview this initial candidate slate, then for most recruiters, it doesn’t matter. But what do you think the mathematical chances are that you’re going to source and develop the absolute best candidates you can find from a pool that’s limited to the first ones you were able to qualify? The same goes for your clients.
That’s why it’s important to be selective and figure that for the average search, there are around 100 applicants; of these, there will be around 10 who are qualified. Of these, the top 5 will be worth slating for final steps, but make sure you’re selective. I recommend waiting a minimum of two weeks before starting to screen out candidates; that’s 14 out of 60 days on an average time to fill spent sourcing, which is likely way less time than you’re spending now for your average req. Sometimes, the wait is worth it. Either way, it’s better to be patient to make sure you’re making the right hire than to rush the wrong one—I promise you that."
Bottom line - you're devaluing yourself if you send resumes over before 7-10 days. Of course, that assumes you're digging and really trying to find 3-5 candidates you can call the best.
If you're not trying to line up a slate of 3-5 stellar candidates, you're likely just spamming your hiring managers when you find someone who might be good enough.
And that's weak. It's called commodity recruiting.
If you're at a company with mixed engagement from employees, you know the reality. You're trying to do some positive things, but you've got people on the bus that don't care if you succeed or not. Can they be saved? I'm not sure. I've kind of always subscribed to the reality you've got people that are for you, fence-sitters you can convert with some effort and people who are disgruntled to the point they probably can't be saved.
This post is about the disgruntled. Last week, the Houston Rockets (professional basketball) were down 2-0 in a playoff series. Their star, James Harden, came down the court for a last shot to win a game and make it 2-1. He made a move, stepped back and hit the game winning shot. Nice, right?
Here's what the bench looked like just after he hit the game winner (email subscribers click through on the title of the post for pictures and video).
The kids in color rather than black and white? Those are actually key players for the Rockets. Let's just say they weren't fully engaged in the positive outcome. #wow
Team chemistry - at your company as well in professional sports - is a fragile thing. There are many contributing factors to chemistry and the resulting engagement you get from the team. Some you control, some are a mix of interactions across the talent you bring in, and some are the responsibility of the employee. I'd tell you if you see reactions like this after your company gets a big win, you might not need to get rid of all three of the employees in red above, but someone probably needs to go.
What about the guy jumping to the right in celebration mode? Silly rookie/new hire. Always with the rah/rah.. He'll learn.
If you need context to the image, the video appears below. (click through if you don't see it) My favorite part? The headband guy catches himself and starts giving a slow clap. To the trained eye, that means while he might be part of the problem now, he could be part of the solution. But only if you get rid of the guy to his left/our right.
If you're like a lot of companies, one of the biggest threats to losing your top talent - the best of the best - is those individuals leaving to start their own companies.
It's a 1% problem. Only the most talented people have the means and the courage to leave to do this. The problem is that often times that 1% creates a lot of value - much more than the 1% that shows up on the FTE report.
What do you do with that? One problem a lot of us have is that these folks try to have their cake and eat it to - starting side businesses while they are still working for your company. That doesn't feel good to a lot of companies or bosses. If you get wind that's happening, you basically have 3 choices:
--You can suck it up and hope their business fails and they stay with you,
--You can become a hard-ass and put out strong policies against moonlighting in similar jobs/industries,
--You can be like Google and get ahead of it and start your own incubator to let them work through their ideas while they still work for you.
"Sundar Pichai has a new plan to stop Google employees from jumping ship to start companies: Create a startup incubator within Google.
Dubbed “Area 120,” the incubator will be overseen by long-time Google executives Don Harrison and Bradley Horowitz, according to people familiar with the project. The two discussed the new group at a recent all-hands meeting.
Google teams will apply to join the incubator full-time for several months, submitting a particular business plan. After that, they’ll get the chance to pitch Google for term sheets for further funding and to establish a new company with Google as an investor.
Area 120—sometimes called just 120—will have a space inside one of Google’s newest San Francisco office buildings. Executives are hoping that it both keeps entrepreneurial employees at Google longer and also stokes big new ideas the company should be working on.
In recent years, Google has watched many fast growing startups slip into rivals’ hands, notably Instagram, founded by a former Googler, and WhatsApp, which Google had its eye on.
And the company remains paranoid about missing the next crop. The creation of Alphabet itself—which is designed to house entrepreneurs like Nest’s Tony Fadell who don’t want to work inside of Google corporate—is trying to do something similar."
If you watch Silicon Valley on HBO, you know that the culture of tech at the top levels of talent is often working for a big, seemingly progressive company but always keeping an eye on the next big thing.
The cynic in me feels like the plan is perfect for Google. If we like your idea, submit for inclusion in the incubator. If we like it enough, we'll let you work on it for a couple of months after which time you can submit for more funding, etc. But you've tipped your hand to our company. We now know your idea, have had a chance to evaluate whether there's enough of a kernel there to invest - basically let you work on your thing rather than your day job.
And lord knows what you signed away related to future rights to your idea when you sought initial inclusion in the incubator - whether you are allowed to continue or not.
Remember Google's 20% rule? The one where you spent 20% of your time working on what you wanted? I'm guessing the best ideas never got worked in that time, and word on the street is that a lot of managers are ignoring the 20% rule and they seek to execute business plans in a tougher environment for Google.
The post showed an overweight man wearing a wig and women’s clothing with parts of the T-shirt cut out to expose his breasts. It says: “LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving racist bigot who needs to die.”
To that, Schilling added: “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”
At issue here is the disconnect between employment and free speech. A lot of people think that free speech in America means they ought to be able to say anything they want - and as long as their performance is good, their employment should have nothing to do with ideas they share as an individual.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Your broad professional conduct policy likely give you the right to fire anyone you want-if they make statements that make others around them at work uncomfortable.
It's a good reminder to talk openly and honestly during your onboarding or orientation process about what your policies could mean related to free speech. It probably goes something like this:
"We believe in free speech and will support you exercising those rights as an individual. However, please note that just because you have that right doesn't mean we won't fire you for something you say. Want to know where the line is? Sorry - we can't tell you. That's where your judgement comes in."
On a personal note, I don't have any transgender friends that I'm aware of. I find myself in the middle ground of a lot of these issues. As a pragmatic, practical sort, I can want everyone to feel comfortable with who they are. Then the world gets in the way. On this single issue, you need look no further than the YMCA locker room.
The average men's YMCA locker room is a freak show. Dudes walking around without towels. Shaving naked. The type of stuff where most Americans aware of the state of this locker room ponder whether they want a young kid to go in by himself.
"When I go to the gym, do I have the right to expect I’ll only see other female bodies showering and dressing and that only other biological females will see me doing those things?
If a man is standing at a public urinal, does he have the right to expect that everyone who enters has the same biology?
At my local YMCA, a sign outside the women’s dressing room cautions that boys older than 6 are excluded, and I’ve never seen an adult male take a female child of any age into the men’s dressing room.
A family dressing room is available, which presumably offers privacy for those who can’t meet the parameters. A similar accommodation could be made for transgender individuals, but the LGBT community has rejected this compromise."
Good luck on there on the bathroom issue from an HR standpoint. I suspect like with many things, we'll allow state laws to guide us on what's acceptable. This one is complicated.
Only if you're concerned about being judged on a daily basis.
I kid - but then again, I don't.
There's an interesting thread going on on LinkedIn now - click here to see the entire conversation. Basically, it goes like this - female makes it through the probationary period and is hired full time by the company in question. Company takes a photo and congratulates employee on "making it".
Of course, at issue is the photo of the female employee. There's some exposure in the chest area, a pose that seems more model than professional recruiter, etc. And if you click back and dig into the comments, the boo birds came out.
Take a look - what do you think? Here's what I think:
1. LinkedIn is increasingly becoming more like Facebook. If you expect a high degree of professionalism, you're likely to be disappointed. If you're OK with LinkedIn looking a lot like life, you'll never be disappointed.
2. I'm OK with the pretty people showing they're pretty. Welcome to the world we live in. More attractive professionals have some advantages that average looking people don't have.
3. If you choose to use the fact you're attractive and use a profile picture that's less than 100% professional, you just have to accept that there will be some haters of that approach.
4. Any time you polarize people with your LinkedIn profile picture, there's pros and cons to the approach. Some people are going to be more interested in you due to your looks. Others are going to judge you ruthlessly and be critical. Is that good or bad? Depends who your audience is.
5. There's always going to be more criticism of women rather than men related to how appearance is used to benefit someone professionally.
Of course, I'm the victim of people hating me just because I have a high level of attractiveness.
I kid. When people hate me, it's usually because they think I'm a jerk. No one's ever been critical of me for my good looks. But it could happen - and I just need to be prepared for that day.
You just lost another one. People are looking to you, because... well, you're the HR leader and you're responsible for turnover, right?
Of course, you know that there are a lot of reasons that people leave. But you also know that your calls for a more competitive compensation structure has fallen on deaf ears.
That's OK. It actually gives you an opportunity to break out the following go-to line sure to be repeated away from HR:
--"We're organ donors for the rich"
You need a go-to line to underscore your lack of competitiveness when it comes to total comp. Would you rather go with "We're organ donors for the rich", or "we really need to look at the competitiveness of our comp plan next budget season"?
Words matter. Use talking tracks that get repeated when you're not around. It's part of your HR Brand.
"How this little thing got so ****ed up lies squarely at the intersection of you sending an uber-aggressive, over-reaching rifleman in, with your target deploying a less aggressive professional with limited natural interest in asking "why".
Who said that? No one. I made it up. But it would be a cool quote.
You're the boss. You've got good ideas and you're action-oriented. To get it all done, you delegate.
Your minions go out and do. They've got good intent. But when it comes back to you not the way you expected, my experience is that often times the reason has something to do with the truth in the quote above.
Someone taking a few marching orders, putting a bit of their sauce on it and then pushing others in the org to deliver can be dangerous. Of course, the other way often leads to the same place. Low aggressive person communicates need, high aggressive person takes the order and adds special sauce and viola!!! Something that wasn't intended is created.
The problem with clarity is it requires people to confront each other's perspective and ideas without fear. That's easy to say and hard to do. Low aggressive people hate confrontation. High aggressive types hate being challenged - especially by those they can tire-track.
Figure out how to make asking why comfortable for everyone - and perhaps expected - and you'll have a culture where work and intent doesn't get messed up so much.
"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.