It's a line as old as time itself. The wisest person in your family gave you the following advice when it comes to the true test of any individual:

"If you really want to know who someone is, watch how they treat others when they think no one is watching"

Without question, you've heard that saying or a variant of it. And it's 100% true. 

This wisdom was on full display last week on a virtual Senate hearing. Here's the rundown from New York Mag:

In the middle of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s testimony before (a video-chat version of) Congress on Friday morning, Delaware senator Tom Carper experienced the kind of tech hiccup so many of us have while working from home over the last few months. And Carper — not realizing his screen and audio were being recorded for everyone to see — didn’t hold back his frustration.

After being called on to speak and almost missing his window because of the technical difficulties, Carper suddenly appeared, directing his ire over the problems at a masked staffer to his left. The senator intoned “f**k, f**k, f**k,” after which the poor man fiddled with Carper’s setup — which had already been restored.

What's interesting about this is that the Twitter mob, quick to cancel almost anyone, played it off and said words to the effect of "that's so 2020" and "who has not faced this?" - which are both correct sentiments.

But you know me. I like to dig a little bit deeper. My folks did tell me to watch how someone treats others when they think no one is watching - because it matters. Let's run through what I saw.  First, watch the whole video multiple times below (email subscribers click through to view or click this link):

OK, got it? Here's what I saw:

1--Yes, this can happen to anyone. Which is why patience is valued in these circumstances.

2--It's not so much that he said the F word, it's how he said it. He turned directly to a staffer who was there to help him, and he didn't say words to the effect of "please help me" even with some cursing included, he basically turned to the staffer (turning away from the camera) and just started abruptly saying, “f**k, f**k, f**k"

3 - That whole deal - turning to a staffer and doing the whole grumpy, abrupt, “f**k, f**k, f**k" without actually asking for help basically puts you on the list of worst Bosses alive. It's a big list, but act like this and you're on the list.

4--Also notable is the fact that he couldn't handle the tech after being coached 100 times, and then clicks on something as he's turning to lambast his help and opens up the mic right before he turned to the staffer to drop f bombs - classic. It means he took responsibility for the tech, but then couldn't handle it, then kind of bullied someone under pressure.

The mob that usually cancels people was quick to play it off. To be clear, I'm not into the cancel thing, so I'm not interested in that angle. I'm not calling for anything.

But dig a little deeper on the mannerisms and call it for what it is. Powerful guy with awful habits related to how he treats people.

Worst Boss Ever - he's on the list.

As COVID drags on, there's a popular topic that's coming up more often in families with college age kids - THE GAP YEAR!

What's a Gap Year? Here's how Wikipedia describes it:

"A gap year, also known as a sabbatical year, is typically a year-long break before or after college/university during which students engage in various educational and developmental activities, such as travel or some type of regular work."

Ah, the Gap Year. If you've had people in your family who have taken a Gap year to travel and "find themselves" and it was even remotely funded by your family, raise your hand. That's a definition of comfort and privilege, regardless of your race or any other identifier.  I'm not hating on it, but it's a very comfortable thing.

As they used to say back in the day, "It's good work if you can get it."

But Gap Years are back in the news, more the result of the pandemic than of privilege.  Two factors make it a hot topic:

1--Remaining fears about the safety of being on campus and in a general college population, and more to the point, 

2--The fact that almost EVERY FREAKING COLLEGE IN AMERICA trumpeted the fact that they would be BACK ON CAMPUS this fall, only to move everyone in, secure the local economy for another 4 months (annual leases on and off campus) and CASH THE CHECKS before announcing they were moving back to a primarily virtual learning environment.

Thus, some people feel smart for taking a Gap Year this term, and others are considering taking one starting in the winter and spring terms, now that the cat's out of the bag related to "yeah, we didn't really ever think we would be back on campus - sorry!"

But the Gap Year ultimately has a cost, primarily in lifetime earnings.  More from USA Today:

A new study out this week  by SimpsonScarborough finds that 40% of incoming freshmen are likely or highly likely to not attend any four-year college this fall. Last week, Harvard reported that more than 20% of its first-year students are deferring enrollment.

But there could be a downside to delaying college by a year: the potential loss of $90,000 in lifetime earnings, according to a study from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That might seem counterintuitive, given that the pandemic has pushed the jobless rate higher, prompting questions from families about whether it’s the best time to make a pricey investment in a college degree.

The pandemic has made a college degree more valuable, not less, partly because the prospects for people with only a high school diploma are far weaker in the pandemic than for those with a bachelor’s degree.  

So how does that $90,000 in lost income come about? Mainly by foregoing the first year of income earned by a college degree – about $43,000 on average, the study found. A gap-year graduate would start earning that same income a year later, and never quite catch up. For instance, a 25-year-old gap-year student would earn about $49,000 on average, compared with about $52,000 for a grad who didn’t take a year off. That adds up over a career to $90,000, the study noted.

As a parent with a kid in college, it's tough to see him back at school but not getting the true college experience. I'm OK with paying, as his 4-years is a reasonable cost ticket, which I'm thankful for.

But I suspect there's been a lot of trust that's been decayed with Universities in their relationships with families and students.

I suspect the new Gap Year will change over time to the Virtual Year, where families and students pick the lowest cost option to make progress on degrees from virtual locations, wait out COVID and transfer credits in to the brick and mortar school when this is all over.

Congrats colleges - glad you got paid. You should hope this COVID thing gets solved by Summer of 2021, because if not, the economy in your towns and cities is going to crater.

As I write this, the Federal Unemployment Benefit of $600 per week as part of the COVID stimulus package expired on 7/31, and with the Democrats and GOP deadlocked related to a new stimulus package, President Trump stepped in with an executive order to serve as a bridge until congress could negotiate a deal in the same area.

This post isn't political. But any and all compensation issues in a pandemic are interesting to me, which is why I had one of my favorite compensation experts - Ann Bares - join me on my BEST BOSS EVER podcast to talk about managing compensation strategy in a pandemic world.

One of the the things that came up (I asked Ann!) was the fact that a lot of companies felt that the $600 per week federal unemployment benefit was preventing capable people from re-entering the workforce. As a leader in a recruiting company, I would tell you that our clients believe this to be true.  Ann had a great response, telling me that beyond the reality of whether people with access to federal unemployment were slow to return to work, she's more concerned and focused strategically on the 2nd and 3rd order consequences/impact of any comp program (including expanded unemployment as an example of that).

That was a "mind blown" moment for me, and I ended up wondering aloud whether difficulty finding needed labor may encourage companies to invest and go "all in" in areas like automation at this point.  Which ultimately harms employment for the sector of jobs in question.

That's the thing about unintended consequences - you never see them coming.

Check out my podcast with Ann Bares below!

---------------------------------

Welcome to Best Boss Ever, the podcast dedicated to helping you develop managers who build great teams. In this episode, Kris Dunn talks about the issues with Managing Compensation Strategy in a Pandemic World with Ann Bares, his favorite industry compensation expert at Altura Consulting Group and writer at Compensation Force.

Don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Google Play. Rate and Review if you like what you hear!

On to the show (email subscribers, click here if you don't see the podcast player)...

Show Highlights:

2:00 - Ann talks about her transition from an undergraduate in social work to the world of compensation, where she found an affinity for quantitative methods.

5:30 - Ann and KD discuss what the transition looks like for companies on compensation strategy as we move from a 10-year expansion to the recession we’re already in.

8:00 - Ann talks about unevenness of the pandemic flavor of the recession - some companies are struggling, but some are expanding and thriving.

12:00 - Ann and KD discuss the most likely changes to come for companies that are in pain from a compensation perspective - think prioritized skill set investments for reinvention, etc. Ann and KD also talk about how adjustments are being made to common components like annual increases, etc.

16:00 - Ann and KD talk about when across the board salary cuts might be reinstated in the marketplace.

17:41  - Ann and KD discuss how WFH changes the landscape of competing for talent from a compensation perspective - what's your pay market when a large % of your workforce is remote? Fluidity is a new reality.  Kris also focuses on the fact that flexibility for personal wants and needs related to WFH preferences creates a new standard for HR pros.

24:10 - Ann talks about whether companies become less aggressive in benchmarking compensation vs the market in recessions. 

27:00 - Kris and Ann talk about whether there Is a brand of company out there that thinks of recessions as a great opportunity to pick up talent. How does their strategy differ from a defensive position on comp?

34:00 - Ann and KD talk about the federal unemployment benefit as part of the stimulus plan, and whether it discourages some people from returning to work. The conversation goes beyond that surface-level topic, as Ann and Kris discuss the 2nd and 3rd order consequences/impact of any comp program. KD notes that any difficulty finding needed labor may encourage companies that are slow to invest in areas like automation to go "all in" at this point.

---------------

Ann Bares on LinkedIn

Compensation Force

Altura Consulting Group

---------------

Boss Leadership Training Series

Kinetix

The HR Capitalist

Fistful of Talent

Kris Dunn on LinkedIn

KD's Book - The 9 Faces of HR

First up, the term "athlete" in this post is meant to describe hiring those who are generally smart, intellectually curious, quick on their feet, learn quickly, are great communicators and have DNA for drive/initiative - rather than hiring someone with domain experience in a job as your first concern.

With that description in mind, do you and/or your company favor athletes over specialists? Sometimes? Never? In what circumstances?

I'm drawn to the question since I read this passage from Diary of a Very Bad Year: Interviews with an Anonymous Hedge Fund Manager by Anonymous Hedge Fund Manager:

When you think about hedge funds, the book quote above displays a common trend. In the early days of any industry or specialty, it's easier to hire the best athlete available, mainly because domain experience doesn't really exist or is generally unavailable. The industry is too young.

But as the industry matures, risk taking on new hires goes down - because candidates with domain experience are widely available.

We could all probably stand to hire more athletes who are capable of not only doing the job in question, but become an agile talent asset for the company. But just saying that you're open to hiring an athlete doesn't mean you'll have success.

For best results in hiring "athletes", you'll need to define what makes someone an athlete. You won't generally find that on a resume, you'll need an assessment package.  For me, a candidate would qualify as an athlete if they have a high cognitive capability, low rules orientation (because I want to throw them at anything I want, they can't be hung up on that), high details (drives execution) and great writing and verbal skills.

They'd also have to be familiar with the term, "fake it 'til you make it", which I think is the mindset of any "athlete" worth her salt as defined by this post.

What did I miss?

Ah, company phones.  Here's the deal - they really don't exist much anymore. 

Why are we talking about company phones? Last week was a doozy as Amazon directed its employees to remove TikTok from company devices, only to take the request back later in the same day. Wells Fargo came in behind Amazon and gave the same directive - and held to its guns.

TikTok is a concern because of data security concerns combined with the fact that it's a Chinese company. China has a long history of being rogue with all types of IP. You can expect that more companies will follow suit and direct their employees to remove TikTok from company devices.

But can we be real a second? Companies long ago transferred the financial responsibility for devices to employees. While a small percentage of employees have company provided devices, at the end of the "Blackberry" age companies began the march to the "bring your own device" world, where employees had access to company email and other apps on the device that they chose. My Gen X and old Millennial friends will remember in the 2010 timeframe when IT departments started allowing personal iPhones to be able to get corporate email.

And like that, the need to provide devices to employees was gone. The pitch went something like this: Your choice, we can give you a clunky ass company-owned Blackberry, or you can use your iPhone to pick up email. Some companies provided a stipend, but most did not.

Poof! Expense related to telephony gone!

Unintended consequence of that revolution - companies don't own the devices that are being used by employees in 90% of the workforce in America.

That means mandating TikTok being off phones goes something like this:

1--Companies mandate no Tiktok on device being used for company work (but that the employee owns), employees say yes (sounds unlikely)

2--Companies mandate no TikTok, and provide phones to a higher percentage of employees (unlikely due to cost)

3--Companies say if you won't remove TikTok from phone, you can't use company apps like Outlook (unlikely due to the hit on immediate response and productivity)

4--Companies look at the do-do bag of options above, do nothing about TikTok (ding, ding! Most likely outcome!)

We talked about this issue on the latest episode of HR Famous.  Take a quick listen below, see the time stamps on this issue shared below and while you're there, subscribe to our pod!

--------------

In episode 23 of The HR Famous Podcast, long-time HR leaders (and friends) Tim Sackett, Kris Dunn and Jessica Lee are back to discuss Jlee’s recent vacation, Tim’s new favorite shorts, different proposed plans for return to work bonuses, and privacy concerns about TikTok and other apps on company owned devices. 

Listen below (click this link if you don’t see the player) and be sure to subscribe, rate, and review (Apple Podcasts) and follow (Spotify)!

SHOW HIGHLIGHTS:

1:20 - Jlee is back from vacay! Jlee went on a working vacation to the beach and returned with a nice tan. 

3:45 - Do you turn on an out of office reply on your email when you go on vacation? The HR Famous crew has rarely if never turned on their out of office reply. 

6:00 - Tim comes through with the much needed fashion advice. He says to check out Fair Harbor shorts! (Also, we’re open to a sponsorship!)

21:45 - Next topic of the episode: TikTok and employer’s rights! Last Friday, Amazon emailed employees to delete TikTok from their phones. Later in the day, they issued a statement that the email was a mistake and their employees didn’t need to delete TikTok. Wells Fargo also directed their employees to delete TikTok from company owned devices. 

24:00 - Tim brings up the bitcoin hack on Twitter and privacy/security concerns on there as well. Although TikTok is a Chinese owned company, there is still risk coming from American owned companies like Twitter. 

25:50 - KD discusses the differences in security issues on different kinds of devices or softwares. Tim brings up how many tech companies have allowed their employees to work on whatever operating system they’re most comfortable with and how there may be IT concerns surrounding that. 

28:00 - KD asks Jlee if she thinks that people will delete TikTok from their personal mobile devices even though most people have other privacy sensitive information on their devices. Jlee thinks it’s not going to happen and says the only way employers could have complete control over the employee’s devices would have to be somewhat similar to government agencies that work with national security concerns. 

30:00 - Tim discusses concerns over TikTok being a Chinese company and therefore, somewhat state-controlled. He thinks a solution may be getting a US owned TikTok alternative to replace the platform. Jlee is very sad about the potential outlawing of TikTok. 

32:00 - Tim thinks that people should be allowed to have multiple logins on a phone like you can have on a laptop or a computer. KD thinks that companies should just pay for their employees to have their own company device to solve any security concerns. 

33:30 - The HR Famous podcast promotes wearing a mask! Mask up!

Let's say you're a rising star with a lot of potential, but a few things to work out. Your company finds you an executive coach, makes the introduction and pays the bills.

You probably need to be wary of who the coach works for. You'd be reasonable to ask that question, but also to dig into the details/expectations of when, where and how the coach would communicate on your progress to others at your company, noted issues you're working through, roadblocks and more.

Here's a great excerpt from a book I'm reading - Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal by Nick Bilton. In this excerpt, noted Silicon Valley Executive Coach Bill Campbell is noted as being his student's biggest booster...and carving him up behind the scenes.

Here's the excerpt detailing his coaching of Ev Willams, one of the founders of Twitter:

“He (Ev) held his weekly meetings with Campbell, receiving his boisterous pep talk. “You’re doing a f**king great job!” Campbell would bellow. At board meetings Campbell would appear to listen to Ev’s presentations on the state of the company. After Ev’s sermons were done, the coach would clap loudly and hug his protégé, proclaiming again to everyone in the room that Ev was “doing a f**king great job!” and asking them to clap (none of this was a usual occurrence in a corporate board meeting). Then, after Ev left the room, proud that his mentor thought he was doing such a great job, Campbell would shout at the group: “You gotta get rid of this f**king guy! He doesn’t know what the f**k he’s doing!””

— Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal by Nick Bilton

LOL. Palace intrigue. It should be noted that Ev was matched with Campbell by a Twitter board member, and also that Campbell's Wikipedia page notes that he coached Jack Dorsey and Dick Costello at Twitter, but not Ev.

Who does the executive coach work for? Here's a hint: if you're not paying the coach and don't have clear rules of engagement on disclosure, the coach doesn't work for you. You might want to be a bit wary in those circumstances.

PS: Can I get an executive coach to stand up and get the applause going when I present in a normal conference room? THAT WOULD BE AWESOME, except for the part where he/she totally blades me when I leave the room.

I'm back with updates on work clothes. As a primer, I'm the same guy who was unafraid to bring you uncomfortable fashion classics like the following:

BEST PRACTICES IN BLUE BLAZERS FOR THE CONTEMPORARY WHITE PROFESSIONAL CLASS MALE

BEYOND BLUE BLAZERS - THE PANTS CHOICES OF PROFESSIONAL WHITE MEN IN AMERICA

If you don't remember these classics, go take a look. There's nothing more fun than busting on how white guys dress.

But I'm back with an update that goes beyond gender and race. Let's talk about the dopamine hit we all get when we find a great deal on clothes, especially for work. I think it's safe to say that there have been some deals out there as retailers got roughed up by the pandemic-caused recession.

One friend of mine has a long history as a complete shoe addict. To prove this affliction knows no gender, this friend of mine with the shoe jones is a guy.

I'll call this friend, "Jim". The pandemic recession hit Jim's addiction hard. Cole Haan, his long primary source of shoe style, starting pumping emails touting 75% off from late March on. Jim couldn't resist. He kept ordering and stockpiling shoes and his closet looks like what you would expect from a hoarder, with probably 10 boxes of shoes, never worn, waiting for action.

His wife would walk by him at home and he'd hustle to another browser window - BECAUSE OF THE SHAME. He kept going back to the crack pipe of shoes that is Cole Haan, and they were happy to use Jim to relieve themselves of fixed inventory costs.

Jim's addiction seems innocent enough. But of course, addictions impact everyone around the addict. He kept forwarding me emails with sales. I ordered a couple of pairs of dress sneakers in early April - at the time I thought, "I'm going to be totally set up when this pandemic is over."

Flash forward to late June. As I look at the two unopened boxes of work shoes in my closet, I'm like, "####, when am I actually going to wear those shoes?"

Great sales on work clothes don't mean a thing right now. If you know someone like Jim, get into their browser history and run an intervention if necessary.

I'm still Jim's friend. I'm boxing up 2 pairs of Sketchers I got for nothing at an outlet mall to send to him. A shoe addict can't break the cycle on his own. I'm hoping the boxes of cheap Sketchers will be like Methadone on his road to recovery.

Good luck Jim. 

2020 - It's been a bit of a year. As John Whitaker pointed out at Fistful of Talent, we know at the very least a 3rd large scale event is coming - the 2020 election in the United States.

Translation - the fatigue you feel, while real, isn't going to get better. This world is going to keep coming after you in 2020. The more you read and watch the news (which you should), the more conflicted, confused and angry you're going to get.

Which brings me to the point of this note about 2020:

What's YOUR Platform?

Nope! I'm not talking about Democrat/Republican, left vs right, Washington Post vs The Wall Street Journal or anything that signifies sides.

Instead, I'm suggesting that if you feel fatigue, anger or hopelessness with how any major event or movement has left you feeling in 2020, turn off your phone (at least the data portion that powers your social apps and video), the news and everything else that's trying to get you to take a side (and potentially hate another side) and do the following:

Pull out a sheet of paper. Do 2 columns, one for COVID-19 (how we're doing the lockdown, RTW, etc) and one for George Floyd and everything that followed in the last three weeks.

Got your columns? Excellent. Now give me 5-10 bullet points on each and tell me how YOU feel about the issues. Really explore where you are at with those two issues.

I guarantee you that you're going to feel more at peace once you're done. Because instead of being manipulated by the various outlets that shoot opinion, point of views and at times, manipulation your way, you objectively listed where you were at on the issues.

And let's face it, establishing where YOU are at is the first step towards a better place, with any of the issues confronting us, and a better world. 

--------------------

I'll give you one piece of my platform - I like leaders who understand how to navigate the complexity of where we are, and I'll cross party lines (I'm a moderate Republican) to vote for good people doing good work.

Example - Birmingham (AL) mayor Randall Woodfin. Late in the first weekend of protests and riots nationally, Birmingham had its first major protest. Woodfin was present and, of course, allowed a peaceful protest and even permitted the group to go to Linn Park in downtown Birmingham and attempt to take down a huge statue with Confederate ties. When it became apparent that 10+ people would be crushed if the statue came down on the protesters, he got on the bullhorn and asked for 24 hours to get the statue down (knowing that the city was under order from the state not to bring down the statue from past years litigation, etc.).

But wait, I'm not done.

The protesters OK'd Woodfin's request and started marching away. Then the group splintered, with rioters taking advantage and started tearing up downtown. Woodfin got on social media IN THE STREETS and said with perfect clarity, "last night of this - we're not tearing up our city."

But again, there's more. The next day, he got the statue down, and BTW, it was one of the first nationally to come down post-George Floyd, and certainly the first to be removed by a sitting mayor. PS- no more riots in Birmingham under the same mayor.

So a mayor in the party I don't automatically affiliate with had the following platform from my vantage point:

1--Allows Protest and actively supports cause.

2--Leads on public safety.

3--Doesn't allow destruction of property.

4--Proactively took confederate symbols down, at risk of lawsuit from the state level. Because it was time.

5--Took the statue to an undisclosed location so neither extreme could get to it, so the legal process could take its course.

Leadership is hard. Conservatives knocked Woodfin for allowing the initial riots. Liberals knocked him for being harder on organizing protests once riots happened. 

I watched and decided I had a lot of respect for how he handled a fluid situation and led as a result. Consequently, I'm more interested in everything else that is on his priority list in Birmingham, where I live.

It sounds like Randall Woodfin has his own platform.

Commenting and trolling on social media is easy. Leadership is hard.

-----------------------

I know this is a long post. But simply pulling out a figurative piece of paper and thinking about MY platform was helpful. It helped me cut out of the noise, and think about where I was at. Along the way, I became more open to the ideas of others, and found people like Randall Woodfin providing leadership during a difficult time.

I don't have a lot of answers in 2020. But I know most people in America (including you) are good.

If you're frustrated in 2020, turn off social and the news and take inventory of what your platform is on the big issues. When you do that, you'll find you have more in common with almost everyone around you, and we can build from there. 

Consuming extremes (without self evaluation) prevents conversation.

Good luck in the rest of 2020. I have to go, because apparently there's a huge saharan dust cloud coming to blanket where I live.

Of course, in 2020 we call that "Tuesday".

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

-Michael Caine in "The Dark Knight"

--------------------------

Intent is a funny thing.  You're in the workplace, and the workplace has established norms:

--We talk to each other before we make decisions or take meaningful action

--We give people a heads up before we announce something that won't feel good to them

--We try to play nice and if confronted, we try to make the person confronting us feel good about our intent.

Of course, those are norms - guidelines if you will, not hard rules.  Every once in a while, you run into someone that does not give two ****s about your norms.  They do what they want, when they want and generally don't give you heads up that it's coming or make you feel better if you ask them about it after the fact.

You know, ass####s.  We're pretty quick to assign full villain status to people who don't play by the rules.

What's interesting about the people like this you think are enemies in the workplace is the following:

You think they're out to get you based on chaos they cause.  They probably think it's Thursday.

They aren't even thinking about you.  Tearing shit up is just what they do.  In the age of Trump, we're likely to cast them as villains and think they're out to get us. That might be true, but in my experience, people who cause chaos can be factored into 3 categories when it impacts you:

1--They're out to get you.  It's what you thought.  They hate your guts, you're in the way and it's takedown time. 10% of the time, this is the reality.

2--They have a plan and a place they want to be unrelated to you.  They have a POA (plan of action) that's bigger than their relationship with you. You're taking it personally, but the "tearing shit up" and chaos impacts multiple people, not just you.  They're not even thinking about you, Skippy. 70% of the time, this is the reality.

3--They don't have a plan but love to keep everyone off balance as part of their managerial DNA.  Again, it's not about you.  Their business is chaos and by the way, the more positional power they have, the better that business is. 20% of the time, this is the reality.

Unless you're experiencing flavor #1 above, your best strategy is to keep an eye on it but ignore it.  Go about your business.  You do you, let them do them and save your emotional reaction and gun powder for when it really matters.  

If you're high sensitivity, this is going to be hard.  They're going to wear you out.  You think it's the workplace version of Normandy.

It's actually Thursday.  What's for lunch?

Shout out to SpaceX for the recent mission on behalf of NASA, launching astronauts and sending them to the International Space Station.

None of it would have happened without a BHAG (Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal).

BHAGs are visionary, strategy statements designed to focus a group of people around a common initiative. They differ from our other goal setting techniques because BHAGS are positioned toward by a large group (rather than individuals) and they typically span a large amount of time than any of our other goals. They’re huge.

BHAGs can come in several flavors. Most are focused on one of four broad categories: reaching a defined target or metric, competition, organizational change, or reputation. Here are a few examples from some companies you’ve probably never heard of…

-Reaching a defined target

“Attain 1 billion customers worldwide” – Citicorp, 1990s

-Competition

“Crush Adidas” – Nike, 1960s

-Organizational Change

“Transform this company from a chemical manufacturer into one of preeminent drug-making companies in the world.” –Merck, 1930s

-Reputation

“Become the company most known for changing the worldwide poor-quality image of Japanese products” – Sony, 1950s

Wait - Nike wasn't always the leader? Japanese products were once considered low quality before Japan was kicking our ass in the 80's?

Well, before the world as we know it at Nike and Sony became the reality, leaders at those companies created a BHAG as a single unified vision for their people to rally around.

You know who else is good at BHAGs?  Elon Musk.  Musk basically BHAG'd his way into Tesla and Space X becoming great companies.  

Electric Car with quality and luxury?  BHAG.

Reusable rockets with segments that can land back on earth on pads?  B-freaking-HAG.

Well, here comes Musk again, probably the most adept user of BHAGs in the world.  The ultimate BHAG for him is Mars - more from The Guardian:

Elon Musk has unveiled plans for a new spacecraft that he says would allow his company SpaceX to colonise Mars, build a base on the moon, and allow commercial travel to anywhere on Earth in under an hour. The spacecraft is currently still codenamed the BFR (Big Fucking Rocket). Musk says the company hopes to have the first launch by 2022, and then have four flying to Mars by 2024.

Last year Musk proposed an earlier plan for the spacecraft, but at the time had not developed a way of funding the project. Speaking at the International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide Australia on Friday, Musk said the company had figured out a way to pay for the project.

The key, he said, was to “cannibalise” all of SpaceX’s other products. Instead of operating a number of smaller spacecrafts to deliver satellites into orbit and supply the International Space Station, Musk said the BFR would eventually be used to complete all of its missions. “If we can do that then all the resources that are used for Falcon9, Dragon and Heavy can by applied to this system,” he said.

BFR.  Musk isn't messing around.  The BHAG is set.

Getting NASA astronauts to the ISS doesn't happen without the bigger BHAG. 

If history tells us nothing else, it tells us that Musk will probably make it happen.  Maybe not by 2024, but you can't have a BHAG without making it seem impossible.