Riddle me this Batman...

You're a youth baseball coach and have tracked with a team of kids in a decent Little League system for the last four years.  When you're coaching a team of 5 or 6 year olds, the system is pretty simple.  Lots of encouragement, and you do the best you can.  You might have 1 or 2 players who stand out, but the rest of the kids are pretty bunched together.    As a result, the batting order and positions played are best left to socialism.  Everyone's equal and everyone hits from a different part of the lineup every game, and everyone gets to play both infield AND outfield.  Everyone's happy.

Then, around age 7, things start to change a bit.  Score is kept, and standings are tracked.  Other teams start to minimize the amount of rotation through the positions, with the best kids left in the infield (where all the action is...).  Once you get to the 8's, almost everyone is locking in.

So, what would you do as a coach?  If you have 5 kids who are clearly superior at this point, do you lock them into the top part of the lineup and the infield slots, or do you rotate?  Confounding the issue is the fact that at least a couple of the kids want nothing to do with the rockets that come off the bat as they stand in the premium infield slots.

When do you start messaging that some kids are better than others?   Help a Capitalist out and hit me in the comments with your coaching expertise...

Signed - Trying to Delay the Real World

As you probably know, I switched gigs, moving from SourceMedical to DAXKO.  I need to riff a post on my first few weeks at DAXKO, but for now, I need your help.  DAXKO does a very solid job of initial onboarding, so I've been in a lot of informational sessions that have helped me figure out what's going on.

As those thin out, it's on to figuring out how I fit in with the team I have, and a big part of that is giving them some notes into what makes me tick so they can be more comfortable with who I am. 

At the start, that means some type of formal activity to lay a lot of stuff out on the table.  Take a look at the note below and tell me what I'm missing.  What can I add to this that will be valuable in breaking the ice and fast forwarding the team regarding their comfort level with who I am and what makes me tick?

Hit me in the comments with your brilliance --

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:48 AM
To: KD's Team Members
Subject: KD Bears His Soul

Hey Team –

It’s Manager Assimilation Time!  Next Friday (assuming everyone’s here), I’m going to do a manager assimilation session with the following elements:

1. I’m doing the 25 Things About Me deal from Facebook – That’s me offering up random bits of information about me so you can get to know me a bit better… be afraid… be very afraid…

2. I’ll be going over my Strengths from the StrengthsFinder deal from Marcus Buckingham…

3. We’ll be putting my DNA under a microscope by going through my DISC profile…

4. You should prepare any questions you have for me as a team on a flip chart.  I will answer ANY question you have truthfully and honestly.  I’m appointing <name removed> as the collector of questions, and she’ll write the questions on a flip chart in one set of handwriting, after which I’ll answer them all.  You all have to ask a minimum of 10 questions per, but you can ask more.   No restrictions – it can be professional, personal, etc.  You should dig to your heart’s content, and one set of handwriting means I can’t judge who’s asking.

There's an interesting discussion going on at Ask the Headhunter:, where Nick C is telling anyone who will listen that candidates shouldn't provide their current and past salary history to HR or hiring managers as a part of the process.  Information is power, and Nick recommends that candidates simply say no.

I get the argument, but if candidates follow Nick's advice, only the superstars are going to survive not providing salary data when asked. Click through and take a look at the past posts by Nick to get a vibe for what he's saying, but here's his most recent advice for HR pros who think they have to have the past pay data on a candidate, STAT:

"But I don’t think HR managers are dopes or even disingenuous. I think they’re brainwashed and can’t see past their own bureaucracy. So I’ve been trying to figure out how to turn the tables and help HR solve the problem without waiting for candidates to cough up their salary info. That way these employers won’t have to pass up good candidates.

So here’s what HR should do. Following the same logic and rationale, at the point where HR would ask for the candidate’s salary history, HR should instead share:

• The salary range for the position in question.
• The salary history of the person who is now doing the same job, or who used to do the job.
• The salary history of others in the department who do similar jobs.

The company’s salary history is a crucial element that helps a candidate assess and judge a company. It enables a candidate to determine whether there is a realistic opportunity to make a match, and whether further discussions are reasonable. It’s legitimate to share the company’s salary information in the context of the interview and application process."

Some of this argument circles around the concept of pay transparency, so it's obvious that you can't give up data on what others make in the same position in the company.  Anyone who disagrees with that statement doesn't have to live with the employee relations ramifications of complete pay transparency. Period. 

With that said, here's the reality.  You don't have to tell me what you make, but you have to tell me what it's going to cost me to hire you.  Without access to that information, unless you're a superstar I can't live without, I'm wasting my time - especially if I'm working a lot of open positions.

So, here's my alternative, which strangely enough meets a lot of what Nick outlines above.  I use this approach when I'm feeling soft and don't want the direct confrontation of asking someone what they make now, or as is more likely the case, when they've already told me (or at least taken a position, truthful or not) what they currently make.  Here's the talking track:

"Jen, I use the first phone call to get to know you, tell you a little bit about the position and let you ask questions.  I don't want to waste your time with the next step if we can't afford you, so I want to let you know that if we got to the offer stage, you could expect an offer to come in somewhere between 55K-62K.  If we get to that point, is that range one in which you could see yourself accepting the offer if everything else you needed was in place?"

That's my talking track.  Without disclosing what others make, I've given a range that provides a strong vibe for how the organization values the job, and what we're willing to pay based on Jen's background.

Jen can say yes or no to that.  If she says yes, I've found that framing it in that way dramatically increases the probability of an accepted offer.

But you've got to at least answer that question after I've valued the job in that manner.  If you don't, you're out.

I hit you with some notes a couple of weeks ago regarding the "Don't Trust HR" article that made the rounds at CFO.com.  My advice?  Stop whining and start doing.  The folks around you know whether you are any good or not as an HR pro.  I guarantee that.  For those of you who are strong, your business peers know the value.  That's not the HR folks, it's the managers you serve.

Put your energy into cramming the stereotype down the world's throat by being a different type of HR pro.  Be better than you were last month.  Initiate a value-added project that someone in your organization didn't expect.  Rinse, repeat.  Think different.

It's not HR's reputation that matters.  It's yours. 

Here's a take from a manager in the field who read the article.  More from Phil G. at the always engaging Slacker Manager:

"Here’s another situation: Someone on your team goes to HR to talk about the way they are being treated by you, their manager.Do you trust HR to listen without taking sides, and to work with you and the associate to fix the problem?

One more situation:

You have a job opening for a highly specialized role on your team that needs to be hired ASAP. Standard protocol is to start with a phone screen with an HR assistant, then meet with a recruiter in HR, then if they are deemed worthy, they get to meet with you.

Do you trust HR to move with the speed you need to get the job done in the time you need it to be done?

According to CFO Magazine, don’t trust HR. According to some in the blogosphere, you should trust HR, or at least think critically about what the article in CFO Magazine has to say.

I trust people, not departments. I make my decision based on the person in the role."

Nobody outside of HR cares about the reputation of HR.  If you're good, you get the rewards.  If you suck, you're part of the stereotype.  Film at 11. 

So, get good and try to get better over time.  Managers like Phil know the score.  They're evaluating you, not the profession. 

Think Differrent. Be the ball, Danny.

The Champion is....

Talented Apps!! - Surviving 5 head-to-head match ups in the FOT Talent Management Blog Power Rankings, the gang from Oracle, lead by Meg and Mark, has emerged as the champion of the little contest we put together called March Madness.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Here's a primer...

Congrads Talented Apps!!  It's no small feat to win this thing, because we had 32 kickin' blogs that  started the tournament, and it wasn't enough to simply be good and liked - you had to motivate your tribe to vote for you.  Almost 3,000 votes after starting the tourney, TA is the winner, after defeating Your HR Guy 56% to 44%.. nice....Congrads also to Lance at Your HR Guy, although I'm still on the DL after taking a beating in the semi-finals...

Here's my thoughts about the tourney we called March Madness:

1.  I like the format, althought 5 rounds got a little long. 

2.  The folks who were the most successful, even suprising, were the teams who could mobilize their "tribe" to vote for them.  That includes Talented Apps (big company), but also some folks with big Twitter and Facebook presences. 

3.  Cinderella Stories - the runs by Lisa at HR Thoughts and Mike at HR Observations.  I knew the quality was there (I'm a reader of both), but had no idea how strongly your tribes thought of you.  Now I know... Well played!!

4.  How did I lose?  Aren't I the CEO of FOT?  Who said this should be fair? Should I make a management change on the editorial side (just joking, JLee)

Congrads to everyone who played!!!

If you've been kicking around the blogoshere for at least a month, sampling different HR and Talent blogs, chances are you've come across the stylings of Zappos.  You know the company - widely espoused to be one of the most progressive workplace cultures in America, with the following features:

1.  All employees are on Twitter.
2.  They'll pay you $2,000 to leave the company after your training is complete.
3.  They've got a personal coach named "Dr. Vik" as part of their talent team.
4.  No offices, only cubes at Zappos, even for the CEO.
5.  The Zappos HR Team includes titles like "Assistant Cruise Ship Manager".

Ever want to dig in deeper to the Zappos vibe?  Now you can with a subscription service from Zappos called Zappos Insights.  I missed the launch of this, so here's how the service was described in late 2008 AdWeek:

"For those seeking brand religion, an unlikely shrine has emerged in the desert the past few years. It sits near the Las Vegas airport: the headquarters of online retailer Zappos.

Over the past few years, executives from dozens of companies, including Southwest Airlines and Best Buy, as well as ordinary customers, have made the trek to see its operations up close. The tour has undeniable Zappos touches: each department has its own greeting, and in-house motivational guru Dr. Vik has visitors sit in a throne for a Polaroid snapshot.

Now the company hopes to turn the intense interest in its culture and approach to business into a moneymaker. This week, it plans to roll out Zappos Insights, a subscription video service that lets companies ask questions about the Zappos way and get answers from actual Zappos employees. It will charge $39.95 per month for subscriptions.

The service, said CEO Tony Hsieh, is targeted at the "Fortune 1 million" looking to build their businesses. "There are management consulting firms that charge really high rates," he said. "We wanted to come up with something that's accessible to almost any business."

Zappos' legendary commitment to customer service has made it a darling of the marketing intelligentsia. In nine years, it's grown to be on track to sell $1 billion of goods this year, expanding from shoes into apparel and even electronics.

Despite the feel-good vibe, Zappos is not immune to the current economic turbulence. Last month, Zappos cut 8 percent of its workforce."

Interesting service and might be worth your time to check it out, if only for a few months.  Warning - I would pay the $40 only if you've got a chance to implement some of what you've learned.  If you can't, you'll more than likely be frustrated by all the cool stuff you see.

Additionally, be forewarned the site looks to be tailored as much to customer satisfcation as it does pure culture tools.  But, the more you dig in, the more you see they're strongly linked.  Zappos pursues the culture goal as a means to achieve higher customer satisfaction.

Even if you don't subscribe, lots of free tools out there for you to review.  My favorite?  An interview with "Dr. Vik", the personal coach.  Interesting as you listen to Vik speak.  If you're a traditional HR person, you're automatically thinking Vik is a gimmick.  Then you listen to what he's saying, and you change your mind.  At least I did. 

Check out the offerring at Zappos Insights, and if you do nothing else as a HR/Talent pro, check out the Dr. Vik interview here.

I finally finished the book "Talent is Overrated" by Fortune Editor-at-Large, Geoff Colvin, which explores the question of whether pure talent or hard, focused work is the key to becoming a world class performer in any discipline.  As you might expect, the book concludes that you can't become world class at anything without putting in tons of hours on your craft and making sure those hours are focused in a certain way.  I read it.  I'm a believer.

The following is one of four quick primers I'll do on the book focused on the following concepts: 1) what Deliberate Practice is, 2) applying the concepts of Deliberate Practice to the workplace and your organization, 3) why creativity/innovation is a myth, and 4) where passion comes from and the "multiplier effect".

Primer #4 - Where Passion Comes From and the Multiplier Effect...

One of the more valuable chapters in Colvin's book is the chapter "Where does the Passion Come From?".  At the core of this chapter is the age old question, "is motivation to achieve great performance intrinsic or extrinsic"?  Does it come from inside us, a natural gift, or does the motivation come from environmental forces?

To answer this question, Colvin walks through a great deal of research, much of which points to the fact that high performers are generally a self-motivated bunch, especially given the fact that the thousands of hours of deliberate practice required to reach the top of a field is a grind - not the most pleasurable way to spend your childhood or early adult life. 

To explain this, Colvin points to something emerging in research called the "multiplier effect", which says that a very small advantage in some field can spark a series of events that produce far larger advantages.  Here's a good rundown from Colvin:

"Note that this multiplier effect accounts not just for improvement of skills over time but also for the motivation that drives the improvement, as the young baseball player's satisfaction leads him to practice more. The sequence proposed by these researchers is strikingly similar to the actual experiences of future achievers reported in Bloom's research.  He observed, "In all the fields most of these young students were regarded as fast learners by their first teachers... Whether or note they were really faster learners than others is not known... However, the attribution of "fast learner" to them by the initial teacher was one major source of motivation.  The teach soon regarded and treated them as 'special' learners, and the students came to prize this very much."

Colvin goes out to outline the same research as recognizing that the multiplier effect was clearly developing the drive of the students - "As they began to receive recognition for the talent in the early years of instruction, the children's investment in the talent became greater.  No longer was the prime motivation to please parents and teachers. It now became the individual's special field of interest."

Small edges, small advantages, perhaps occuring in the external environment, serving to provide positive feedback and results to the child.  As a result, the child likes how that field or interest makes him feel, then becomes self-motivated to invest more and more time in the field voluntarily.

So goes the multiplier effect.  How does that change how you steer your kids?

I finally finished the book "Talent is Overrated" by Fortune Editor-at-Large Geoff Colvin, which explores the question of whether pure talent or hard, focused work is the key to becoming a world class performer in any discipline.  As you might expect, the book concludes that you can't become world class at anything without putting in tons of hours on your craft and making sure those hours are focused in a certain way.  I read it.  I'm a believer.

The following is one of five quick primers I'll do on the book focused on the following concepts: 1) what Deliberate Practice is, 2) applying the concepts of Deliberate Practice to the workplace and your organization, 3) why creativity/innovation is a myth, and 4) where passion comes from and the "multiplier effect".

Primer #2 - Using Deliberate Practice at Work and Within Organizations:

I'm a big fan of this book, and I'll be posting primers #3-#5 in the weeks to come.  But for now, we're reviewing how Colvin approached the concept of using deliberate practice at work and within your organization.

Here's the short version - Colvin didn't have any new ideas.

That's OK - allowing employees to chase what they are good at via deliberate practice doesn't sound like something companies would be good at, does it?  After all, companies exist to chase their lines of business and make a profit.  Sure, we develop people, but not to the end called for via deliberate practice.  Read the post regarding what deliberate practice is again - no wonder companies don't do it - it takes too much time, and companies generally need employees to be competent at many things, rather than great at one thing.

That's why world class talent tends to migrate to "independent contractor" status.

For the record, here's what Colvin listed as ways organizations can apply the principles of great performance:

1. Understand that each person is not just doing a job, but is also being stretched and grown.

2. Find ways to develop leaders within their jobs.

3. Encourage leaders to become active in their communities.

4. Understand the critical roles of teachers and feedback.

5. Identify promising performers early.

6. Invest significant time, money and resources in developing people.

All good ideas are necessary, but not groundbreaking at a macro level, especially when looking for application of how the concept of deliberate practice can be applied to work and organizations.

Remember - the concept of deliberate practice is the concept of 10,000 hours of practice to become world class at one thing.  The ideas shared by Colvin are too generalized to have real application related to deliberate practice and organizations.

That's why the great ones generally do it on their own.  The organization (wo)man wasn't built to be great at one or two things.  He/she was built to be merely good at many things...

By now, you're probably on Twitter.  Congrads.  There is stuff to be learned there, but you have to make some choices.  Am I using it for my personal life?  Limiting it to just those I can learn from professionally?  A mixture?  If so, how do I wall that off?  What type of tools should I download to get the most from Twitter?

Lots of things to consider.  Here's the big one - How much do I Tweet at work?  That depends on your workplace culture.  If you can't even access Twitter at work, welcome back to the Death Star.  Lando Calrissian is probably in the cube next to you.  Tell him I said "hey"...

Here's a rule that is easy to remember - don't use twitter when the boss is talking to you or at you.  Actually the rule is "never never never never never never never never never never never Tweet while your boss is talking to you".  Charile Villanueva of the Milwaukee Bucks found that out the hard way.

Here's the rundown on NBA tweeter Charlie Villanueva from the LA Times:

"So learned Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva after it came to light that recent halftime Gatorade and orange slices also included some down low Twitter action.  During the intermission of an eventual 86-77 win over the Boston Celtics last Sunday, CV slipped away to deliver the following message to the devotees of his "CV31" ID.

"In da locker room, snuck to post with my twitt. We're playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up."

While some might consider it admirable that Villanueva took the initiative to channel his inner- and cyber- "Knute Rockne", Coach Scott Skiles wasn't digging it, and put the kibosh (banned twitter) on any further in-game "tweets."

So Skiles is talking to the troops getting ready for the 2nd half, and Charlie says, "I gotta go to the can", then is found leaning against the bathroom wall tweeting for his followers.  Hilarious.

Here's my list of times when it's appropriate to tweet in your bosses' presence.  As an ode to the Bucks, my examples are riffed in the style of Charlie V above:

5.  When someone's late for a meeting and you want to help- "in da meeting room with Dave G.  No DW 2B found".  

4.  When you need to ask a business question pondered by the boss - "talking 2 Dave G.  Who knows when the new Mac is coming out?"

3.  To suck up to the boss, but only if you mean what you are saying - "Dave's presenting.  Freaking brilliant".

2.  To build the brand through visuals - "talking about the non-profit market

<insert twitpic on non proprietary slide>"

...and the number one time when it's appropriate to tweet in your boss's presence...

1.  To let the boss know you got the coaching message (channeling Charlie V.) - ""In da bathroom, snuck to post with my twitt. We're down to the last days of da fiscal year, tie ball game after 11 months. Dave wants more toughness. I gotta step up."

Thanks Charlie!!

I finally finished the book "Talent is Overrated" by Fortune Editor-at-Large, Geoff Colvin, which explores the question of whether pure talent or hard, focused work is the key to becoming a world class performer in any discipline.  As you might expect, the book concludes that you can't become world class at anything without putting in tons of hours on your craft and making sure those hours are focused in a certain way.  I read it.  I'm a believer.

The following is one of four quick primers I'll do on the book focused on the following concepts: 1) what Deliberate Practice is, 2) applying the concepts of Deliberate Practice to the workplace and your organization, 3) why creativity/innovation is a myth, 4) why great talent continues to perform as it ages, and 5) where passion comes from and the "multiplier effect".

Primer #3 - Why Creativity/Innovation (as we know it) is a myth.

One of the biggest things that challenged me in "Talent is Overrated" is Colvin's take on Innovation.  I, like many of you, like to think of world-class innovators as touched by god and different than most of us in unexplainable ways - other than they're very, very talented and unique.

Colvin, as you might expect, goes back to the blood, sweat, and tears of deliberate practice and offers up this perspective:

"Understanding where innovation comes from is particularly important because we tend to believe deeply that this type of performance, even more than others, is a mysterious gift.  It's easier for most of us to believe that a great tennis player achieved his succes through the principles of deliberate practice than to believe that a great inventor got there that way.  But the evidence shows that the most important factor in their high achievement is the same for both.  Professor Raymond S. Nickerson of Tufts University has written that "the importance of domain-specific knowledge" as a determinant of creativity is generally underestimated, even though investigators have given it considerable emphasis." What makes the biggest difference is the willingness to go through the demanding process of acquiring that knowledge over time.  David N. Perkins of Harvard, surveying the many factors that have been proposed as important elements of creativity, wrote, "The clearest evidence of all demonstrates the connection between creative thinking and values broadly contstrued - a person's commitments and aspirations...Much more than we usually suppose, creating is an intentional endeavor".  Wanting to achieve mastery of a field, committing to the long, hard work of achieving it, and then intending to innovate-that's how it happens".

And, so it goes according to Colvin (which also matches up with Gladwell's take in the book , "Outliers"), who reminds us for every "a-ha" moment in a lab or a studio, there's likely 10,000 hours of grunt work that's been put in off-camera...