RATIONALIZE THIS: Do You Keep Your iPhone if People Died to Make It?

I'm "up with people" today on a Friday.  I'm going to wave the flag a bit, because there are plenty of bashers related to the situation in the US on a variety of fronts.  Times are tough.  Companies don't treat workers the right way.  The EEOC is running active PR campaigns to publicize the companies they sue.

As a result of tough times, lots of people like to rage against the machine that is America.  Companies suck.  There's not fairness, no equity.

You know what I'm saying to the haters?  If you really believe that America doesn't do things the right way, you need to give up your iPhone.  Probably your Android as well.  

Why?  Because for all the drama in America, people generally don't die in our workplaces.  And why you're sniffing the marketing juice of companies like Apple and thinking they're above the fray, the bottom line is it's a lot more complex that we care to admit.  From the New York Times:

"In the last decade, Apple has become one of the mightiest, richest and most successful companies in the world, in part by mastering global manufacturing. Apple and its high-technology peers — as well as dozens of other American industries — have achieved a pace of innovation nearly unmatched in modern history.

However, the workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly — safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning."

Tim Cook replied to this article with the following letter.  Go give it a read.  That article says what I've known for awhile, but most people are unaware of.  The conditions in China are horrible.  Apple and everyone else takes advantage of that supply chain with limited human rights.  It makes the American workplace look like heaven.

My point?  Fairness and equity in the workplace is complicated.  Hate the way things are going in America?  Like to hate how much power companies have?

Cool.  You ought to give up your digital device when you compare that to what goes on in China out of protest.

Last time I checked, that American low wage manufacturer or hourly retail shop that has low-end jobs didn't have suicide nets.  

Be consistent.

More on "Questions to Ask To Figure Out Who Owns Your Culture"....

Yesterday, I posted on How to Figure Out Which Managers Are Net Positive to Your Culture in 1 Question...

Pretty good challenge or food for thought came in from David in the comments of that one.  Check it out:

"Kris - Won't the answers to this be dependent on the existing culture? If the organization is filled with "slackers", aren't they going to pick someone who they perceive will allow that to continue?

And also somewhat subject to the halo effect? Human nature attributes positive factors to successful performers, whether they actually have those attributes or not. I think this bias would enter into the results."

My take - bias is always at play, but in my experience using this question, employees will tell you what they aren't getting enough of with their answers, and it almost always centers around things you and I consider to be critical in building a strong organizational culture - items like the manager taking the time to deliver feedback, spending time on the development of the employee, standing up when necessary for the employee/department, shooting straight and being honest with the employee, limited political game playing on the part of the manager, etc.

You know - things that show leadership and empathy, all with an employee-centric approach.  The employee is really saying what they don't get enough of with their current manager with this question.

I thought David's question was good, but I've always seen it go the other way - the employees tell you who's doing things very, very well.  People talk, people know.  If you have more than 15-20 managers in your unit, ask the question - you'll almost always get some surprises....

 

.  

How to Figure Out Which Managers Are Net Positive to Your Culture in 1 Question...

Capitalist Note - re-running this favorite since many of us are still in the planning stages for the new year regarding the best way to evaluate and improve lots of things - including culture.  Don't overthink the questions and tools at your disposal... see comments for more gold....

There's lots of talk about how to build the best culture possible at your company.  Regardless of how you define your culture, you can figure out what your team members really think, and what they want culturally by asking the following question:

"If you could pick any manager (other than the one you're working for) in the company to work for (regardless of functional area), who would it be and why?"

It's a no BS question on what people want out of your company. Culture isn't defined by workspace, by free lunches/soda or by the stuff you put in the onboarding packet.  Those things help to attract and are nice to have, but they quickly become entitlements.

You are not the car you drive.  You are not your khakis.

You lose control of your culture once your managers take delivery of talent in the new hire process.  At that point, an employee's experience with your culture is heavily influenced by their day to day interactions with their manager.

"If you could pick any manager (other than the one you're working for) in the company to work for (regardless of functional area), who would it be and why?"

Ask the question.  My bet is if you do it and review the results in a group of manageable size, you'll find some common names popping up all over the place.  Employees talk.  They know who's good with people, who's fair and who has a nice balance between business results and development of team members. 

Ask the question, and then look at the names that come up repeatedly.  Look at their style and philosophy, then figure out how to push, prod and train your other managers to embody some of the qualities you identify.

The question doesn't lie, and it releases the employees responding from saying, "I'd take my manager"...  Because we all know that's the politically correct answer.

Ask the question.

Another Installment of DO YOU FIRE THIS GUY?

That's right - It's time for another installment of "Do you fire this guy?"

The topic this time is an easy target - the FedEx guy who throws a computer monitor over a gate during the holidays.

Hello...McFly....Those that can afford gates usually have sweet video systems watching the gate... Whoops...

Would you fire him?  Hit me in the comments, and as an added bonus below the video, I'm going to give you the top 5 reasons you wouldn't fire this guy (email and RSS subscribers may need to click through for the video).

Here's the top 5 reasons some of you would not fire that guy:

1.  The union contract is sticky related to due process for this type of thing.

2.  He's high risk from an EEOC standpoint.  You don't want the noise.

3.  He's shared some personal stuff with your team.  He's going through a rough patch.  You hate not to show support now.

4.  He claimed in the interview when you presented this video to him that his boss told him it was OK to pitch electronics over the fence to meet his production goals - after all, that s#*# is insured.

5.  His boss and team have proactively waged a campaign that while it's inexcusable, everyone deserves a second chance - even if they starred in a video that generated 8 Million views that damaged the brand on YouTube.

Actually, I'll give you 6 - Everyone does it.

You know you'd hear some of these.  Enough not to fire?

More Proof That Crappy Exit Interviews Do More Harm Than Good...

It's true.  It's better to do nothing on the exit interview front than to do it poorly.  Example below with a hat tip to Deadspin:

"Tweets Sean Locklear, tackle extraordinaire: "Worst exit meeting ever! No coaches,no front office, just physicals and goodbye to teammates! We did just spend 5 mos together, WOW!"

That was a tweet from an NFL player who was going through the Washington Redskins exit process that's conducted at the end of a season.  Of course, he later pulled the tweet down after it caused a small storm.  But not before we got the window into his soul.

Clinically, the exit process was fine.  Checking to see if anything was wrong or if anything needed to be followed up on - we get it and expect it.  

But underneath, once you say you're going to do an exit interview, the expectations rise, usually with one question that has two parts:

"Where's the presence of someone who cares, but also someone who can make a change if things didn't go well for me while I was here?"

And that my friends, is a big, big burden.  Most people won't tweet out their dissatisfaction, but you can bet they're asking the same question if you handle your exit interviews in a similar fashion.

You've got some exit interview forms and your coordinator is running people through your "Exit Interview" process face to face.  Is that enough?  Or does it actually take your company's "approval rating" down a couple of notches?  Would it be better to follow up a few weeks after the ex-employee has left the company, when expectations are lowered, emotions have calmed, etc.?

Think about it.  Your exiting employees and NFL players have more in common than you might think.

LEADERSHIP & DAMAGE CONTROL: How to Communicate When Something Goes Terribly Wrong...

If the Penn State and Syracuse scandals have taught us anything about leading in a crisis, it's that you need to get out of the denial business and show you're accountable in any damage control situation.

In case you missed it, there was a big old jailbreak of a brawl in college basketball on Saturday night (Cincinnati at Xavier) including sucker punches, stomping of downed players after said sucker punches and a host of other crazy stuff.  Remember the Ron Artest malay?  College basketball is pretty lucky this one didn't spill over into the stands.

How do you communicate when it all goes to hell at your company as a leader?  Do this for me - watch the video of the fight below, then we'll talk after the jump about how the University of Cincinnati and Xavier University communicated after the game.  Lots of lessons in leadership and communicating after a negative event in this one.

First the fight (email subscribers click through for all videos):

Now, for the reaction.  First up?  Xavier University, who put their players in front of the media after this brawl and got the results they deserved - the players claiming to be gangster and telling everyone if you challenge them, this is what you are going to get.

Next up, the University of Cincinnati put head coach Mick Cronin up in front of the media, and got the results they deserved.  A leader of a program saying that he and the program he represents is accountable, and that he told all the members of a team that he would decide who's still a part of the program after the full review:

Wow.  See any contrast?   Who's the rocket scientist at Xavier who let the kids who were in the middle of craziness express their thoughts?  

Leadership - fail.  Wow, that was weak.

Cronin, on the other hand, did well.  "I took everyone's jersey".  "We'll decide who's still part of the program".  "I took some of the jerseys off some of the kids myself". 

When it doubt related to communicating in a crisis, go for accountability.  Oh, and don't let the employees who helped create an epic situation be the ones who communicate for your company.

It's called leadership.  Get someone in front of the cameras or print reporters who can handle it.  The last thing you need is an inflammatory quote that damages the brand even further.

If Your HR Client Group Includes Locker Rooms (employees or customers), You've Got Trouble...

I come to you today with a mission of mercy.  I'm here to help, remember that when you find this post less than acceptable.

Here's what I want to say.  You know the Penn State thing, right?  If your business/HR client group includes male/guy/dude locker rooms of any type, you've got some work to do.

Why?  Consider this conversation that happened two years before the Penn State scandal (at the YMCA for a youth hoops game):

Mrs. Dunn: Your son has to go the bathroom.

KD: You didn't send him there himself, did you?

Mrs. Dunn:  Noooooooooo. (said indicating she understood my point perfectly)

KD:  Can you take him to the women's locker room?

Mrs. Dunn:  He's a little old for that.

KD: Damn.

Why the drama?  At the Y we go to, there aren't any stand-alone bathrooms.  You have to go to the locker room to use the bathroom.  And a locker room at a YMCA is a male nudity extravaganza, often of questionable judgment.

I'll spare you a lot of details.  No, I'm going to give you some of the details.  Old guys blow drying their hair without any clothes on, at the bathroom sinks next to the toilets my son would use.  Same type of guy buttoning up his dress shirt without any underwear on after a shower.

It would seem that toweling/underwearing up would be something simple to do.  Yet it doesn't happen.  So even before the Penn State thing broke, I'm hesitant to send my 8 year old son into that locker room alone.  Weird deal.

It was the same way when I played college basketball.  We had our own digs/locker room, but some of the professors would use the facilities.  Turn the corner and sure enough, there's a history professor that's friendly to the program brushing his teeth.  Buck naked.

You're a HR pro with a client group that includes locker rooms?  Think long and hard if kids are anywhere in the vicinity.  You're looking at an increased compliant/nasty claim rate since the Penn State/Syracuse stuff broke.  

Can't speak for the ladies.  But that's the deal on the dude side.

Good luck with this one.  It ain't pretty.  And I mean that figuratively and literally.

THE JIM BOEHEIM RULE: Leaders Should Never Attack an Alleged Victim's Credibility...

Who's tired of reading about perverts and predators roaming the sidelines of college sports?

Everyone?  Better get used to it, because the biggest fear of Athletic Directors everywhere is that this is going to end up looking like the abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, which have caused the Vatican to start selling jewel real estate to pay all the bills and settlements related to the claims.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but you can advise your senior team to learn one thing from the latest case - Jim Boeheim of Syracuse University - that transcends all employee relations claims, from the most shocking to the most minor allegations.  That lesson is this:

"When someone makes an allegation against someone you know, respect and trust, your job as a leader is to be balanced.  If you lash out against the person making the claim out of emotion or because you think the person making the claim is a slimebucket, you lose.  You've already screwed up an investigation that hasn't even started."

For those of you who don't know, Boeheim is the head men's basketball coach at Syracuse University, and has an assistant that has been accussed of abusing a former manager in the program.  Boeheim reacted instead of leading when the story first broke, being critical of the alleged victims.  Now he's in a world of hurt, as is his employer. More from ESPN:

"When the allegations against Fine first became public Nov. 17, Boeheim adamantly defended his longtime assistant and attacked the accusers, saying he suspected they were trying to get money.

"It is a bunch of a thousand lies that he has told," Boeheim told ESPN, referring to Davis. "You don't think it is a little funny that his cousin (relative) is coming forward?"

Those comments prompted a swift backlash from victims' advocates, who were outraged by Boeheim's attitude.

Boeheim, who had been sharply critical of the accusers, has softened his stance 10 days after an impassioned defense of Fine, who spent 35 seasons on the bench next to Boeheim and was fired Sunday.  The Rev. Robert Hoatson, president of Road to Recovery, a group that supports victims of sexual abuse, said the dismissal of Bernie Fine was appropriate but didn't go far enough.

"I think Jim Boeheim should be fired or resign as well," Hoatson said Monday. "These boys were members of the basketball program. Jim Boeheim's responsibility is to oversee that program, and the children were not safe on his watch."

As supporters of victims of sex abuse called for Boeheim to be fired, university trustees were largely silent."

It happens more often in corporate America than we care to admit.  Woman makes a claim of harassment against the VP of Marketing.  The CEO or Line SVP reacts and puts pressure on the HR Lead or General Counsel to make it go away.  They refer to the less than stellar performance and reputation of the alleged victim.  They make statements related to the case that are way too public.  All those things come up in the legal proceedings that follow.

As Al Pacino once said in Glengarry Glen Ross, "You just cost me $6,000" (great link, click it - some language...).  Except you should probably substitute 60K for the 6K.  Inflammatory statements before the leader knows any facts cost money.  Big time.

But - if you have a renegade leader who likes to make big statements and make the calls before they know all of the info, share this post.  We're increasingly living in a world where that type of leader is going to be asked to fall on their own sword in nasty employee relations issues where they didn't lead.

Life imitates art.  Business is going to imitate sports in this area.

Dress Codes: Is Your Ban on Iverson Jerseys and Stretch Pants More About Control Than the Customer?

You've got a dress code at your company.  You say it is because of the customer.  But is it?  Or is it more about your need for control?

Case in point - The kid pictured on the right is wearing a retro Allen Iverson jersey in the Dunn household to celebrate the end of the NBA lockout/strike.  Now normally, you know that would never be allowed.  We generally don't celebrate anti-authority figures, regardless of race, gender or religion.  No Courtney Love t-shirts.  No John Rocker throwbacks.  

Why?  I say it's not about my need to control, it's about the behavior that the personality stands for.

Charles Pierce would beg to differ.  He'd tell you dress codes are meant to exert control, just like lockouts of unions are designed to show labor who the boss is.  More from Grantland:

"And the third and most important reason why you know that the lockout was not really about economics is that there was a lockout at all. Lockouts occur when management believes that unions are too strong, and they occur when management believes that unions are too weak, and they occur when management doesn't want a union to exist at all. Lockouts are not devices of economic correction. That's just a byproduct. Lockouts are attempts by management to exercise control over their workers. Period.

Control always has been important to David Stern. For example, in the past, he's sought to maintain control over both Allen Iverson's rap lyrics and over what the citizens of Seattle ought to do with their tax dollars.  In 2005, following proudly in the footsteps of generations of American nuns, Stern instituted a "dress code" for his players so that the various corporate wolverines in the VIP seats wouldn't think that Yo! MTV Raps had broken out in the lower bowl. And, no, you don't exactly need the Enigma machine to decode what that was all about.

No detail is too insignificant. Nothing is so small it cannot be monitored. Last season, the NBA — which is to say David Stern — came down with a rule that states, and we are not making this up, that headbands cannot be worn upside down or inside out. This nonsense got on the last nerve of Boston point guard Rajon Rondo who, rather than abide by official foolishness, ditched his trademark headband entirely. Not even Roger Goodell, the most anal of anal-compulsive commissioners, ever came up with anything this petty and stupid.

The lockout was nothing more than the headband rule writ large. It was an attempt to demonstrate who was in charge here. Stern saw the "perception" building that his players were less "dedicated to the game" than they were to their various "outside activities," and that the hired help was "out of control." The NBA's kept press had been harping on this loudly ever since LeBron James took his talents, and his disappearing act in big games, to South Beach. And, again, you don't need a microscope to read between the lines there."

Back to the Iverson jersey.  How did it get in the house to begin with?  He's labor, I'm management.  What's up?

First up, it's a sweet retro version of the Iverson jersey, in the style of the 76ers when Darrel Dawkins and World B. Free were roaming the sidelines.  Stars on the side.  Stitched.  Very Nice.

Secondly, it came home for $10 from the consignment store.  Nice style and I started thinking about what Iverson stood for when I saw it.  Played hard every night (games only).  Took a beating.  Durable. Willed a bad team to the finals.

The jersey stayed.  I gave up some control, but I've got my eye on the behavior.  If he ever says, "We're talking about practice, man", I'll burn it in a heartbeat.

EDDIE MURPHY: On Taking the Job That Offers No Balance and Almost Kills You...

"I bet you could figure out the combined grosses of people who came off Saturday Night Live in the movies — me, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, Mike Myers, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd. I bet it's like $15 billion. That show's like Harvard for the comic actor. When you come off that show and get into the movie business, it's like you're moving into slow motion for a couple of years. You've been working like a crazy person in this pressure cooker, then you're in the movies, just sitting in your trailer."

That's a quote pulled from a great rundown of the career of Eddie Murphy by Bill Simmons over at Grantland (Click here to read the whole article).  Loved the article, because who in Gen X doesn't remember Raw, 48 Hours, Coming to America, etc?

But the quote grabbed me.  With all the talk about work/life balance and how the new kids want that over anything else, one thing is for sure...

The kids who pay the dues are going to be the ones who are running the show in 15 years.  That's why if you have kids or a niece, nephew or other type of young professional in your life, you should wish them one thing from a carer perspective: A crystallizing career experience that almost kills them, but gives them 15 years of experience in 3-4 years in the career field of their choice.

A consutling shop where they travel 4 days a week to clients and have to "fake it until they make it".  A gig in a creative shop where they go 80 hours in one week on the project that's going to save the company, and they do that once a month for 3 years.

You know what I'm talking about.  Crazy work.  Unbelievable experience. The baseline that's going to allow them to lead others based on all the IP that ends up in their heads.

Then, when they turn 30, they can get married and have kids.  Buy a mini-van.  <fill in your cliche here>.

Children are our future (see clip below).  Eddie Murphy knows the truth. So should we.