« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »

February 2009

Personal Branding - Important Enough for a Magazine?

Social Media is important for talent pros to be involved in and general comes in stages.  First, you do some Google searches to see what's out there in your space.  Next, you become what I call a "lurker" and start to subscribe to blogs and networks that you consider relevant to what you do.  When you're feeling really cocky as a newbie, you get up to guts to start commenting on blogs and maybe even open a Twitter account.

And that last step is where your personal branding seems to begin.  Instead of being a consumer of Personal branding coversocial media, you're stepping out to tell people who you are, which is a form of branding, whether you like it or not...

Now, I've just used the term "personal branding" and most of you need a nap.  That's OK, I know it's a lofty concept, so I'm pointing you today to a resource that can explain it better than I.

The resource?  I'm going with Dan Schawbel, personal branding dude over at the Personal Branding Blog, and also the publisher of a little mag called the Personal Branding Magazine.  The latest issue of the magazine focuses on the first step of the personal branding process, brand discovery. Many people rush into personal branding, without first taking time to figure out who they are.  Dan's team interviewed some leaders in the space, such as Marcus Buckingham, to help you with your own personal development.  Here's who he has up in this issue:

-Marcus Buckingham is the bestselling author of First, Break All the Rules and The Truth About You. Has sold millions of books and addresses 250,000 people a year in his keynote speeches. More about Marcus…

-Marshall Goldsmith is the New York Times bestselling author of What Got You Here Won’t Get You There—a Wall Street Journal No. 1 business book and Harold Longman Award winner for Business Book of the Year. More about Marshall…

-John Assaraf is the New York Times bestselling author of Having It All and was one of the coaches in the hit movie The Secret. More about John…

-Tim Sanders is the author of Saving The World At Work and former Chief Solutions Officer at Yahoo! Inc. More about Tim…

It's a good mag to get immersed into the concept of personal branding, and you should check it out.  Odds our if you're reading this blog, you're already down the road on the concept of personal branding, and you may not even realize it.  If I had one criticism of the mag, it's that most of the dudes on the cover look a little too polished and make me feel that I'm going to a captive timeshare meeting.  But that's probably just me being snarky, because the content is valuable and needed for most of us.

Check it out if you have a chance.....


Social Media Test for HR = "Looking For a New Job"...

Here's a great test to understand if you are dialed in to the extent you should be with various forms of social media.  It's an easy test, so don't click away, just answer the two simple questions below:

1. "Have you ever run across social media activity from one of your employees that Disgruntled clearly showed they were looking for a job?"

2. "Do you run across social media activity at least one a month that indicates one of your employees is looking for a job?"

How did you do?  Here's a key to score your results and to better understand if you are dialed into social media, to the extent you need to be, as an HR pro:

-- You answered "yes" to both questions - you're in the hunt.  You're likely using social media a good bit, and as a result, you see the folks who are putting themselves out there, telling the world they need a new job.

--You answered "yes" to question #1, but "no" to #2 - You know what social media is, but don't have much reach inside your company, whether that's definded by LinkedIn connections, company Facebook friends, or even a Monster/CareerBuilder resume database account.

--You answered "no" to both questions - The kids would call you a fossil.  I, on the other hand, would tell you if you've never seen one of your employees shopping themselves for a new job, you're not part of the social media world... But you should be...

What's got me thinking about this?  I usually see employees shopping themselves via my Monster and CareerBuilder account, but last week I saw an employee change their LinkedIn status to "looking for a new job".  Now, you have to question this employee's train of thought, especially since 80% of their network is made up of employees in our company.  Also, I'm sure they, like me, get the LinkedIn network update that lists everyone who has changed what they are working on/status.

So, it's not the best move, but if you aren't dialed into social media, you'd never know there was a problem. 

Me?  I'm dialed in and wondering what's going on in the employee's mind.  My experience says the employee fits one of three profiles:

1. The Free Agent: In an increasingly digital society, a growing percentage of your employees always have the "for sale" sign up, ready to consider any reasonable offer presented. Blame the breakdown of the lifetime relationship between employer and employee, but don’t blame the employees who are Free Agents. They’ve seen their families and friends laid off and outsourced, and their mind-set is to always be on the lookout for greener pastures. It’s not personal for the Free Agent, it’s just business, and no action you take will take them out of the marketplace. (Bonus tip: If you are looking to qualify someone as a Free Agent, look at the "date updated" on their profile within the database. Uber-Free Agents make a small tweak every couple of weeks to stay at the top of the search results. They’re a crafty bunch!)

   2. The Reactionary: Like Peter Finch from the classic movie Network, this employee is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore. Whether he has been passed up for a promotion or is the recipient of a poor review or tiny raise, he feels slighted. As a direct result, he’s now marketing his availability in the broadest fashion possible. Need proof of the motivation? Look at the date the résumé went up. It’s usually the same day or the day after the delivery of bad news. With your involvement, there’s time and an opportunity to salvage the situation.

   3. The Disgruntled: Think chronic, not acute. This employee started out reacting to an event and never got out of the funk. He’s widely known in your workplace as not being happy and is always difficult to deal with. You, my friend, get to ponder this one and figure out what to do. He won’t update his résumé every two weeks like the Free Agent (he’s disgruntled, not market-driven), but he’ll never take the résumé down. Problem is, his disgruntled nature makes him significantly less marketable than the Free Agent. As a result, he’s probably not going anywhere.

Thoughts?  What profile did I miss?  Yours? 

PS - if you've never run into this and you are an HR generalist, get rolling on social media in 2009. 


Fired for Being a Vegetarian - And Running in Snug-Fitting Shorts...

Why would I make that up? More from the Kansas City Star:

"A Wall Street trader says his boss called him "gay" for refusing to eat meat.   And now, ofReal girls eat meat course, he's suing. He alleges that his boss worked up a bunch of complaints to fire him, when he really disliked the guy for being a vegetarian. Which the boss reportedly considered the same thing as being gay. Snip from the Daily News:

Ryan Pacifico is suing Calyon in the Americas, charging that his one-time boss at the French financial firm presided over a testosterone-fueled trading desk, where he was mocked for avoiding meat and wearing snug-fitting shorts during triathlons."

Of course, the real issue is the term "gay", and this example serves to warm up some of the content in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is focused on expanding Title 7 to include sexual orientation as a protected class.  Here's a summary of the bill to get you warmed up:

"In an attempt to broaden Title VII, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) proposes to add “actual or perceived sexual orientation” to the list. ENDA will affect HR professionals on several levels, including how to conduct interviews, hiring and firing employees, instituting policies and procedures, and ultimately creating a workplace that is heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual friendly.

Many of us (including me) have had sexual orientation language in the anti-harassment and discrimination policies for years, so I regard this type of legislation as a non-event in many ways.  Additionally, I've been fortunate to have worked for some great companies, with managers at all levels who didn't/don't judge or act based on someone's sexual orientation.

Here's the only problem I have with the bill.  It over-reaches by including an "associational discrimination" clause, which makes unlawful discrimination against persons who associate with others who are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, i.e., every human being on the face of the planet. Of course, the ENDA does not further define what association means but would very likely encompass such things as being friendly towards an individual or spending time with them outside of work.

You're kidding me right?  Friends of those with a "perceived orientation"?  That's overreaching in my eyes. 

Many folks that I've read are also wary of the "perceived orientation" language in the bill.  I'm not.  While more and more people are candid about their orientation, there are also many more who aren't, and the perception of their orientation is always in play in the workplace by managers, co-workers and vendors alike.  It's the reality.  Additionally, others are concerned about the act imposing on religious rights.  Most of the folks I know with strong religious beliefs in the workplace understand not everyone shares their beliefs, and as a result they have to be moderate in the workplace.

Of course, it sounds like Wall Street might have to be a little more careful of their treatment of vegetarians (as well as runners concerned with maximizing performance) if the ENDA becomes law.


Working at One of the "100 Best Companies to Work For" - Meaningless If Your Manager Doesn't Rock...

OK - the latest list of Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For is out, and undoubtedly, there are a lot of great companies on the list.  After all, who doesn't want to work at some of the companies listed in the top 10.  Google?  Cisco?  Goldman Sachs?  Sign me up today, because it's all good.  I can't wait to experience the culture... the rewards... the freedom...

And that's just the reaction to the companies within the list that I know.  Also included areBest companies some incredible companies we don't know, who obviously have great environments where talent can bloom.

But, hid inside the underbelly of these environments is a dirty little secret.  The dirty little secret also applies to companies not listed as well.  I'll outline it for you two ways - one for the "best companies to work for, and one for "the unwashed masses".  It goes a little something like this:

--The golden rule - "A company's culture and attractiveness as a place to work is contingent on the effectiveness, approachability and progressiveness of your manager.  That means:

1.  A company often listed as a great place to work is often mocked by those within the company with an ineffective manager, and

2. A company not listed as a great place to work will receive many of the same retention benefits among employees, who have a great manager who reinforces, supports and leads.

Before you label me as a cynic, understand what I'm saying.  The leadership of a company can create an environment where talent can flourish, and tools, resources and freedom to innovate are present, etc.  Companies should strive to create that type of environment.  It's a good thing...

However, a bad manager can make it all worthless in the eye of an employee.  Consider the recent article about Google as reported by TechCrunch:

"In 2008 Google HR set up a private Google Group to ask former employees why they left the company. We’ve been forwarded what appears to be authentic posts to the thread by a number of ex-Googlers, which we reprint below minus identifying information other than their first names.

The thread shows a brutal honesty about what it’s like to work at Google, at least from the point of view of employees who were unhappy enough to resign. Top amongst the complaints is low pay relative to what they could earn elsewhere, and disappearing fringe benefits seemed to elevate the concern. Other popular gripes - too much bureaucracy, poor management, poor mentoring, and a hiring process that took months."

I would encourage anyone who feels like they aren't at a "best employer" to read the entire article.  The result for me is an understanding that the best employers in America struggle just like you do with many management issues, and the best way to ensure your employees are engaged is to be a good manager who coaches, cares, communicates and has flexibility.

What do your exit interviews say?  Most of the same stuff heard in the rundown at TechCrunch about Google.