« October 2010 | Main | December 2010 »

November 2010

Leadership Means You Cut Out the Negative Body Language...

Last week, I riffed on the importance of the ability to hear raw stupidity, look it in the face and keep a straight, emotionless game/poker face.  Let's face it, it's a skill your kids are going to need.

Why? Because repeated emotional reactions, even in small body language mannerisms, make people write you off. In addition to keeping a poker face, I'll add another essential career skill to the mix. If your reaction to every negative event is to blame others or otherwise say it wasn't your fault, you're screwed.  People are going to write you off if they see it from you every day.

You don't have to complain out loud to be viewed as reacting negatively.  You see it in small mannerisms all around you.  The frown. The sigh.  Or my favorite, the hands out with the palms pointing up - that one really pisses me off when I get it from my kids.

Apparently, it really irks the New York Jets as well.  They've taken to fining quarterback Mark Sanchez in practice for negative body language.  More from Business Insider:

"NFL quarterbacks are supposed to be the leaders of their team.

Being a leader requires a certain type of physical presence – good posture, steady gazes, and level chins. The Jets don't feel like their star quarterback, Mark Sanchez, puts off the appropriate kind of image. He pouts and sulks.

An example from Jets offensive coach Brian Schottenheimer told the Star Ledger: "Today, there was a play in practice when he screwed something up. He kind of looked like it was someone else's fault. That's a fine."

Word.  That's why I just fined my son $1 for doing that stupid finger snap thing all the kids are doing these days.  I told him it was a $1 fine every time I saw him do it, and he could get all the money back after he was "negative body language" free for a week.  Next up, palms in the air, the equivalent of "what?", "me?"

Start fining people for negative body language today in your workplace.  I'm sure it's legal...


Hiring 101: If Your Only Job Qualification is Status as a Reality-Show "Cougar", You're Probably Not a Match...

By now, you probably have heard all you want about the HP saga involving the resignation/termination of CEO Mark Hurd.  Click here for more details, which involves reported harassment of a contractor, lying on expense reports and more fun and games.  Fortune is out with a deeper dive on what really went on behind the scenes, and it's worth a read - go read it now.

The report outlines how the internal investigation was handled (they never interviewed the alleged harassed lass), how the board came around to being skeptical of Hurd based on his reaction to how the Fisher_age_of_love incident should be handled internally and externally, and how the company's recent history with ethical lapses played into the quick reaction to remove Hurd.

You might have known some or all of that.  Here's something you didn't know: Staffers of Hurd at a very high level at HP were responsible for recruiting Jodie Fisher (the one who made the harassment claim that brought Hurd down) into the HP organization.  

No big deal you say?  What if I told you that the key staffer for Hurd making the hire thought it would be a good idea to use a reality TV show featuring "cougars" as a talent pool to recruit from?  I can't make this stuff up - more from the Fortune article:

"Mark Hurd was miffed. It was 2007, two years into his tenure as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, and he was annoyed at the amount of time he was wasting. Hurd was so obsessed with time management that he'd built a spreadsheet to track his movements. When Hurd was displeased, he let people around him know, and one person who was always around was Caprice Fimbres. A former public relations account executive, Fimbres was Hurd's "program manager," an aide with broad sway over the CEO's schedule.

Fimbres took on the challenge of allaying Hurd's concerns. At some point, she began thinking about a television show she'd been watching. Fimbres was hooked on reality TV, and that summer she'd been following a particularly bad NBC series called "Age of Love." Its gimmick was inane, even for an inane genre: "Age of Love" pitted a group of female twentysomethings—the "kittens"—against a group of fortysomethings—the "cougars"—vying for the affections of a real-life tennis star.

Apparently Fimbres concluded that experience in a made-for-TV cat fight was the ideal preparation for playing gatekeeper to one of the most important corporate CEOs in the world. Whatever her rationale (she declined to be interviewed), Fimbres decided to recruit among the cougars, according to Nadine Jolson, a publicist for some of the contestants, who says Fimbres contacted her at the time.

At least two other contestants from the "Age of Love" discussed an HP role with Jolson. But the tech giant ultimately hired a 47-year-old divorced single mom from Los Angeles named Jodie Fisher to act as a greeter at events where Hurd met top customers. Her job was to gracefully steer clients, ensuring that Hurd spent the right amount of time with the right people."

Let's work through this.  Hurd's an efficiency freak, and he pressures his right hand to help him ensure he spends the most time with people who give HP a lot of business.

The key staffer thinks to herself: "I need someone to help Mark quickly vet who's valuable and who's not at the functions we hold for CIOs.  Where can I find that type of person?"

Answer: "I bet one of those Cougars on the Age of Love would do well with that. I really like that show and admire the cougars"

You're kidding me, right?  I get that trade show staffing requires a certain amount of attractiveness.  Look at any trade show exhibit floor and you understand that's a job requirement.  However, last time I checked, the software/IT industry was stocked with tens of thousands of sales and marketing reps who are attractive enough to match up with Jodie Foster, AND have the ability to understand who's a big biller, who needs to see the boss and maybe even talk a little shop with the CIO in question.  You know, actual job skills in addition to being somewhat attractive.

Instead, the key staffer (paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'm sure - she's not an administrative assistant) turns to a reality TV show to make the key hire who would deal directly with the CEO.

You can't make this type of stuff up.  Unbelievable.

It all comes down to the judgment of those who make the hires in your organization.  Hire for looks and omit skills, and you get what you get. 


Deep Quote Friday: On "Haters"...(those who hate)

Deep quote Friday at the Capitalist.  Today's feature quote is on those who criticize and those who do, or at least try to do...

From John Sumser at the HR Examiner:

"It’s better to put a stake in the ground and get started than it is to sit around waiting for perfect inspiration, the right timing and an unassailable position of strength. It’s easier to navigate when you’re moving. It’s easier to criticize when you are standing still.

Translation: If all you do it complain and find fault when someone is trying to add value and chart some new ground, you're part of the problem. 

Feedback? Yes!

Cutting someone down who you think got it wrong? Depends on a couple of factors:

1. Have you ever stepped out of your comfort zone and tried to present new thoughts/approaches/tools to a broad group of people?  Ruling: If no, you ought to be careful about just bitching about what's wrong with someone else's ideas. You really haven't earned that right.

2. You have stepped out of your comfort zone and tried to carve out new thoughts/approaches/tools? Ruling: You have the right to bitch a bit, but you ought to do it in the spirit of conversation, including balanced feedback about what you like and don't like, what you think the person needs to consider based on your experience, etc...

Funny thing.  All the people who fit #2 generally give feedback the way I described.  They have empathy about how hard it is to create new things from personal experience.

Take care of the innovators, people....


Can Your Managers Really Impact Anything?

What?  Why is KD asking this question?  Hasn't he always said that good managers are the key to any business?

Yes.  But only the really good ones.  The average ones really don't make a difference.  They either avoid the necessary conversations or don't really know what to say or do to get results and motivate.  The bad ones hurt you by being a net negative on total performance. 

Here's some interesting data on the impact a NBA coach has on total performance from the Wall Street Journal:

"In a league where coaching turnover is rampant—almost eight changes per season over the past Popovich two decades—a study co-written by Southern Utah University economics professor Dave Berri suggests that fewer than a quarter of NBA coaches between 1977 and 2008 had any significant effect on their players' performance.

Mr. Berri looked at 62 coaches in the three-decade span, only including those who worked long enough to have 15 everyday players come to their team after their arrival, as well as 15 everyday players leave (this was to make sure each coach had a sizable roster of players to analyze). Mr. Berri used his wins-produced metric—which shows how many wins a player is worth by seeing how his statistics correlate to winning—to measure the players' performances and see whether they significantly improved or declined. If they did, then the coach passed the so-called effectiveness test.

Your managers deal with turnover - the equivalent of players in and players out - every year.  While the study is impossible to extrapolate directly to the business world, it provides directional information confirming what you already know - that some of your managers don't really make an impact.  Sure, they keep the trains moving on time and fill a seat, but can they really coach a team for higher performance than peer managers?

Fewer than 25% of the coaches in the Berri study had a significant impact on total performance.  That sounds about right for the business world.

The bigger question is what manager skills in the business world translate to getting more revenue/performance, all things being equal, out of the same team?

Answer that question, and you've got a pretty good argument for the value of a kick-ass assessment program before you allow anyone to touch one of your teams.  But, you still have to figure out what to do with the vacant manager seats while you're looking for the Phil Jackson of managing teams in the telecom industry (or whatever industry you're in).

The prospect of vacant seats is why the following statement is true in most companies: "We've got an open widget maker manager and it's been open for 3 months?  Let's just go ahead and promote the best widget maker to manager."

Sigh.... 


Atlas Shrugs/Guam Capsizes: Oh, The Places You'll Go... The People You'll See...

I've got two sons, and every now and then, I think about what I'd like them to become related to their professional identities... You know, skills they'll need to be good at regardless of the field they choose.  

I'm adding a skill to that profile today: The ability to hear raw stupidity, look it in the face and keep a straight, emotionless game/poker face.  

Here's an example of where they'll need that skill in workplace conversations.  From CBS News:

"Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is raising some eyebrows with a comment he made about the U.S. territory of Guam during a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Thursday.  In a discussion regarding a planned military buildup on the Pacific island, Johnson expressed some concerns about the plans to Adm. Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific fleet.

 "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said. Willard paused and replied, "We don't anticipate that."

Here's what's incredible about this conversation.  Willard, obviously a skilled representative for the Armed Forces, hears the gibberish and doesn't flinch.  He keeps a straight face through the entire thing and basically treats it all like it's a real conversation.

Career Lesson:  There's a term for professionals who can't control their emotions and get through conversations when they hear raw stupidity - they're called "enlisted men" and "sergeants"

Nothing wrong with being either.  But if you want to lead, the poker face is a key skill you must acquire.  Click through to see the video of Willard's reaction to the capsize comment.  

God help the people of Guam.  Their island is unstable.  It could tip.


The Answer is "Don't Be a Tourist, Alice".... What's the Question?

Mailbag time over at Fistful of Talent today, where the whole team is answering a question from a loyal FOT reader.  Here's my answer to the question of the day:

"Kris Dunn - First up, there's nothing in your scenario that suggests he RIFed you the first time around because he didn't like you.  Sounds like he had some tough choices to make.  BUT... If you were my friend and I was giving you survival advice, I'd give you the following nugget: Don't be a tourist Alice.  Wait around and ring your hands over this and you get what you get.  Take action to let people know what went down the last time and what your concerns are, and you win.

I'd have a sit down with him and let him know what you're anxious about.  Let him tell you the last RIF had nothing to do with your work - let him tell you it's all going to be OK.  Before you have that conversation, find a HR pro who supports the client group (manager and up, not a transactional person) and tell them the same thing - you think if push comes to shove, you're going to be out. Do the same thing with the person who runs the show above him.  The more people who know that you got RIFed before and he made the call, the less likely they are to allow him to make the same call again.  Bet on that.  Or, you can be a wallflower and see how that works out.  Throw the fastball. You're welcome.

With an answer like that, you know you have to see the question.  Here's the kicker - I'm the calm one out of the FOT crew on this one.  Any time you get quotes like "sharpen your sword in silence", you know you're getting good advice.

Kick it on over to FOT today to see the question, and all the FOT hardball goodness...


The Blue Pencil Diaries: Why Every Sales Pro Wants Their Non-Compete Written in Georgia...

Kick around the HR game long enough, hire some sales pros and you'll find one common thread: Every sales pro wants to find a way to get their non-compete connected to Georgia, some way, somehow.

It's not a love for the peach state, the Braves or the girl power R&B group TLC that they're channeling. It's the fact that Non-Competes are almost unenforceable in Georgia due to a shortage of blue pencils.

The law may be about to change...Read on young grasshopper.  From Dewey, Cheatem and Howl , I mean Barnes and Thornburng:

"Under current Georgia law, the courts are not permitted to modify or redraft (blue-pencil) an unenforceable restrictive covenant unless it was executed in connection with the sale of a business. So, if any portion of a restrictive covenant was deemed to be unenforceable, the covenant would fail; there is no means to salvage the agreement and impose reasonable limits on a former employee's competition or solicitation of customers. The new Act would change Georgia law and authorizes acourt to "modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable as long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive with regard to the employee than as originally drafted by the parties." This important change makes the enforcement of restrictive covenants far more likely in Georgia and changes the nature of any legal dispute from "whether" a covenant is enforceable or unenforceable to "under what terms and conditions" the covenant is enforceable."

English?  Under the current law, most non-completes get struck down in Georgia because judges aren't allowed by law to keep the good parts of a non-compete, and throw out clauses that are over-reaching and unreasonable.  It's all or nothing, and since companies can't help themselves - they almost always over-reach, the end result in Georgia is that almost no non-competes are enforced legally if challenged.

Interesting to see what the voters do on this one...