Cost of Living Pay Cuts for Twitter Employees Moving from Bay Area: Valid or BS?

By now, you're aware that hundreds or thousands of companies have announced that their white-collar jobs won't be returning to the office until 2021, and perhaps until a vaccine is approved, deployed and effective.

That means people working for those companies can work anywhere. Add that the densely populated cities were the first hotbeds of COVID infection, and you've got a recipe for a talent migration - individuals determining that this is a good time to leave coastal areas like NYC, the Bay Area and Los Angeles (click link for one of hundreds of reports). Twitter

But as every HR pro knows, salaries offered via compensation plans get adjusted based on how much it costs to live in specific geographical areas. To no HR pro's surprise, that means companies at some point are going to adjust the compensation of people leaving areas like San Francisco for more remote areas where a 3-bedroom home doesn't cost 2-3 million.

Surprise! The process has started even at the most tech friendly (fair to say progressive) companies.  Last week, Twitter and VM Ware announced the plan to adjust salaries of those fleeing the Bay area was formally being rolled out. Here are some of the details via Bloomberg:

--VMware (NYSE:VMW) offered to let employees work from home permanently, but those who opt in and move out of the Bay Area will receive pay cuts. .

--The salary reductions depend on where the employee relocates. Denver, for example, would come with an 18% annual pay cut (San Diego, 8%), according to Bloomberg sources.

--Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) is using a similar strategy with its newly permanent employees, and Facebook is mulling adopting the compensation scheme.

--Twitter employees who move and lose pay will get a $3,000 one-time allowance

--VMware tells Bloomberg it adjusts pay depending on the "cost of labor" for the region and notes that employees moving to more expensive areas could receive raises.

Is this fair? The talent pros who have been around the block will undoubtedly say yes. After all, if you open up a software developer shop in Denver as a means of relieving recruiting pressure in SF, and your compensation plan tells you the cost of a developer is 98k instead of 120K, that guidance would drive the recruiting plan related to what you wanted to pay. You might use the range based on what you find in the market, but that guidance is there for a reason, and most of the delta is cost of living guidance.

As expected, the Twitter mob is losing its mind. It's unfair, another example of the man attempting to screw the little guy, etc.

It's actually just data and math, folks. And for the most part, it's 100% legit.

Having said that, booming markets where a bunch of California people flee to in order to escape oppressive state taxes (and whatever else they're fleeing from) can lag a bit related to what the best compensation surveys might show. Denver and Idaho are red hot, but 18% still seems in range if you're trying to escape San Francisco.  Austin is another hot location, which begs the question of state taxes (0% in Texas) being included in the calculus.

Of course, what's normal and customary is also an opportunity. Tech companies looking to grab talent could take the market position of "we're not reducing salaries for those who move!", and use it as a recruiting advantage.

But that would cause compression and resentment for those that remain, which is kind of what the whole geographic thing related to compensation was designed to handle in the first place.

Good luck with the move, Twitter people! May your W-2 remain robust and in conjunction with your locale...


Human Nature: We Hate Good Ideas From People We Don't Like (The HR Famous Podcast)...

You know it's true. When your arch enemy does good, you could applaud them. But it just feels better to bitch by questioning their motives behind the good idea they're pitching.

You know the idea I'm talking about - the one YOU had in mind. It just turns out that you weren't in a position to deliver on that idea, so your arch enemy, nemesis or competition did it before you could get to it.

I know - you really hate them. You hate them more for announcing the idea that's a part of your identity.

Case in point - this week on The HR Famous Podcast, we're talking about the Trump administration announcing moves to make it easier for people without degrees to get government jobs. That position/move sounds more progressive than arch conservative. As such, the spin from the media was predictable - It's a ploy to try and buy votes from the poor people on the fence who might vote republican.

Of course, there's one little problem - the bill is actually a good one and there's no way this bit of news impacts the election.  We don't need more degree requirements - let's help more people get into consideration for good jobs by eliminating requirements that are barriers, as well as non-predictive of success in the role. While the media loved to spin this one, it's a great example of what I described at the jump.

We love good ideas - until whoever we consider our nemesis launches the idea before we do.

Human nature 101. Check out the conversation at the podcast below starting at 22:30 and highlighted below, and subscribe while you're there!

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


Listen (click this link if you don’t see the player below) and be sure to subscribe, rate, and review (Apple Podcasts) and follow (Spotify)!
 
SHOW HIGHLIGHTS
 
10:30 - First BIG topic of the day - Apple is giving all employees paid time off to vote or volunteer at a polling place in upcoming US elections. Tim gives his employees time off to vote within reason and he commends Apple for allowing retail workers to have time off to vote.
 
14:20 - Tim Cook and Auburn University shoutout from KD!
 
15:00 - KD doesn’t think that Apple’s decision is that out of the box. He brings up the potential logistical concerns in manufacturing or other settings where scheduling could be an issue. 
 
16:00 - KD and Tim discuss the potential influence of who to vote for from company execs. Tim talks about how his Mom used to share wisdom on who to vote for and why. 
 
18:00 - Tim and Jlee think Apple should have released to the public the memo on PTO to vote for good employment marketing. 
 
20:30 - Jlee is planning on taking a PTO day for the day after the election hangover. How late are you willing to stay up to watch election results?
 
22:00 - HR Famous supports Apple CEO Tim Cook and Auburn University (at least KD does). If you’re reading this Tim, we would love to have you on the pod!
 
22:30 - Second BIG topic of the day - President Trump signed an executive order in late June ordering the federal government to revise their qualifications for jobs, in hopes to prioritize jobs skills over college degrees. Ivanka Trump is leading this initiative to help those without higher education get good federal government jobs.
 
24:30 - Tim praises the federal government for catching up to private industry and taking out unnecessary job qualifications for certain jobs. 
 
26:30 - Tim and KD worry that this news coming from the Trump administration will be discounted because it’s coming from President Trump and both of them think it’s a pretty progressive move. 
 
31:00 - Tim talks about how he used to require all of his recruiters to have a college degree and the determination it shows to finish a degree. He has changed his requirements since and he’s seen some of his best recruiters come in without a degree. 
 
33:20 - Tim asks Jlee and KD what percentage of jobs they think actually require a degree. What do you think?
 
36:50 - One final War Eagle and Tim Cook shoutout!
 

 


How Did You Grow Up? I See My Parents In Things I Do at Work Every Day (The Best Hire Ever Podcast)

At my desk in my home office, I have two things to remind me where I came from:

--A weathered work thermos that was used by my dad in his career as a Telecom Lineman, and JleeBHE 

--A desk bell used by my Mom in her long career as a 1st grade school teacher.

Those items are on my desk to remind me of how much influence both had on me. Not that I need them for that, because I see my parents (RIP Kent and Deanna) in things I do every day of my career. While I'm my own person, there's no doubt that there are tens, if not hundreds, of little influences from them related to how I communicate, react to wins, deal with losses and otherwise navigate through the workday.

I know I'm not alone in this, which is why I asked Jessica Lee of Marriott International to join me on the Best Hire Ever Podcast to talk about the influence of her parents on her career.

Jessica grew up in an immigrant household in Seattle and California - her parents were immigrants from South Korea. It was great to hear all the experiences that Jessica can remember and understands the impact that upbringing had on her life and career - and how she's trying to pass some of it on to her children.

Take a listen below and hit me in the comments or with an email to tell me how you see your parents in you every day you're on the job.

I bet they gave you great stuff. 

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

Please subscribe, rate and review (Apple) and follow (Spotify) to get the latest delivered to you.

 

SHOW HIGHLIGHTS:

2:00 - Is it Jessica, JLee or JL?  Not Jess or Jessie, BTW.

3:00 - KD talks about the pressure for college admissions, first jobs, etc. on today's young workers. KD points out that Jessica has done great things, but did not have a master plan at 22 or 23 years old. JLee agrees and talks about going on a date in DC with a guy who wanted to know her 5-year plan.

6:15 - Jessica describes growing up in a household with immigrant parents from South Korea. She talks about being a 1.5 or 2nd generation American. Jlee also talks about her first memories related to work and her parents.

8:35 - KD asks Jessica about her parents' desire to "create something" and whether they communicated that vision. JLee talks about the contrast between her parents' approach and her own relationship with her children.  

10:45 - Jlee talks about her siblings, their achievements from a career perspective and her role as the youngest in a household with Korean heritage.

14:23 - JLee talks about what she sees in herself,  related to work, based on her memories of being raised by immigrant parents. JLee recalls that, while expectations were high, there was an expectation/reality that they had to figure things out on their own, which is a cornerstone of who she is professionally. 

17:45 - KD challenges JLee to find a single trait to attribute to one of her parents and she comes up with a great one - her mother's attention to detail and how everything communicates something specific to the outside world - appearance, communication, running a meeting, etc.

23:40 - Jessica talks about the relationship of how she was raised to how she's trying to raise her own kids. She talks about the positive impact of having no safety net on her and her husband and struggling with how much her kids should be forced to struggle. JLee also talks about her parents' expectation of a professional career vs how she wants to influence her kids related to career choice.  KD asks about what her 2nd generation Korean peers are doing related to safety nets for their children.

30:00 - Jessica talks about how mental illness in her family (peaking in her high school years) also influenced how she was raised and how she views the world, as well as the impact of losing her father when she was 20. All of it combined to provide her with drive and initiative, as well as her worldview. KD asks JLee if the mental illness didn't exist if she would still have the same drive from a career perspective.

35:00 - JLee shares info from her executive coaching sessions.  SCOOP!  KD and JLee talk about how having a limited safety net builds self-awareness and urgency.

39:15 - KD is back to JLee as a parent! How is she going to weave all of it together - background, experiences and more - to get the best possible outcome for her kids?  JLee talks about the balance between "stacking the deck" vs forcing them to bootstrap in life.

RESOURCES AND SHOW NOTES:

------------Jessica Lee

Jessica Lee

The HR Famous Podcast

------------Kris Dunn

Kris Dunn on LinkedIn

Kinetix

The HR Capitalist

Fistful of Talent

Boss Leadership Training Series

Kris Dunn on Twitter

Kris Dunn on Instagram


Are You Willing to Hire "Athletes" Rather Than Specialists at Your Company?

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? Hfm

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:

“HFM: I didn’t go to business school. I did not major in economics. I learned the old-fashioned way, by apprenticing to a very talented investor, so I wound up getting into the hedge fund business before I think many people knew what a hedge fund was. I’ve been doing it for over ten years. I’m sure today I would never get hired.
 
n + 1: Really?
 
HFM: Yeah, it would be impossible because I had no background, or I had a very exiguous background in finance. The guy who hired me always talked about hiring good intellectual athletes, people who were sort of mentally agile in an all-around way, and that the specifics of finance you could learn, which I think is true. But at the time, I mean, no hedge fund was really flooded with applicants, and that allowed him to let his mind range a little bit and consider different kinds of candidates. Today we have a recruiting group, and what do they do? They throw résumés at you, and it’s, like, one business school guy, one finance major after another, kids who, from the time they were twelve years old, were watching Jim Cramer and dreaming of working in a hedge fund. And I think in reality that probably they’re less likely to make good investors than people with sort of more interesting backgrounds.
 
n + 1: Why?
 
HFM: Because I think that in the end the way that you make a ton of money is calling paradigm shifts, and people who are real finance types, maybe they can work really well within the paradigm of a particular kind of market or a particular set of rules of the game—and you can make money doing that—but the people who make huge money, the George Soroses and Julian Robertsons of the world, they’re the people who can step back and see when the paradigm is going to shift, and I think that comes from having a broader experience, a little bit of a different approach to how you think about things.

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?


The Danger of the Combative, F-You Style Reply on Email (Woj and ESPN edition)

Late last week I covered the decreasing dominance of Adrian Wojnarowski, an NBA reporter who has an incredible run of being THE source for breaking news in the NBA. Read that post and you'll see that "Woj" (as he's known to the masses) is increasingly being challenged by Shams Charania, a writer at The Athletic. He goes by "Shams", and recently has been breaking as much news as Woj, to the point where followers of the craft are mocking Woj for reporting news that Shams beat him to, if only by seconds or a few minutes on Twitter.  

More bad news for Woj late last week and over the weekend... Woj responded to a PR firm of a US Senator challenging the NBA for its stance on China with a simple response delivered via a two world email Wojreply: 'F**k You."

Here's a few simple details via Bleacher Report:

"ESPN has suspended NBA reporter Adrian Wojnarowski after he wrote "f--k you" in response to an email from Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley's press office, per Ryan Glasspiegel of Outkick.

Wojnarowski has been suspended without pay, per Andrew Marchand of the New York Post, who offered further details:

"ESPN declined comment, though their actions will likely become obvious this week when the ultra-prominent Wojnarowski is not on the air. The end point of Wojnarowski’s suspension, if that has been defined, is not yet known."

The suspension occurred after Wojnarowski made the remark in reply to a press-release blast from Hawley, who said the NBA was "kowtowing to Beijing" and "refusing to support U.S. military and law enforcement."

Here's the email response from Woj to the PR firm served up - of course - by Senator Hawley (email subscribers click through for the tweet):

So that's a lot. But I want you to step back, take all the politics out of it, strip all of the partisan BS away. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican. Doesn't matter.

Woj screwed up. Something came across his desk that he either didn't agree with, or his political view of the person sending it got in the way of good judgment. So he went back with a harsh reply. And in the process, gave all of his power away. He allowed someone he disagreed with to take his reply and position it any way he wanted.

The older I get, the less email I send - especially that could be consider combative. Better to be neutral and better yet, not respond at all.

By winning the email chain (in his mind) and losing the bigger battle (suspended, more importantly, looks erratic to many moving forward), Woj loses. Shams has already eaten away at his dominance. Woj deals in confidential conversations where stability is key. He also deals with lots of NBA front office officials who don't want China to be on the mind of anyone when thinking about the NBA after the Darrly Morey incident in 2019.

When you make your money by being trusted, erratic is bad. Erratic is a reason not to give you the information you need to do your job.

Managers/Leaders, take note. Being erratic, while it may feel great in the moment and while you may feel you're 100% right - is a good way to get shut out over time. Stay away from any type of messaging that can be forwarded and spun without your control.

On a final related note, Shams (Woj's competition) liked an anti-Woj tweet on the matter.

Take politics out of the equation. Erratic behavior loses in the business world. Unless you're 100% in charge and/or on top of the world, which Woj is not.


Woj vs. Shams: When Young Upstarts Overtake Established Stars...

You've seen this talent story before.

There's an established star at your company. He/she has been widely recognized as the best, the industry/company standard, the go-to person. Their run of performance has been impressive and it looks like it will never end. Clients are direct dialing this person due to this reputation, which further cements the incumbent's position and just keeps the performance/results snowball going downhill. 

Then a funny thing happens. The veteran slips a bit, and a young upstart begins to rise and challenge their position. Suddenly, it's Woj vs shams not easy to determine who's the best, and those observing start wondering what happened to the established star.

Need a visible example? Try "Woj vs Shams" in the professional basketball journalism space.

Adrian Wojnarowski is your incumbent star, known for breaking news in professional basketball space via something called the "Woj Bomb", which has been so prominent it's defined as the following by Urban Dictionary:

Woj Bomb - A breaking report made by prominent NBA insider Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN that comes out of nowhere to have a huge impact on the landscape of the NBA

Woj generally breaks that news via Twitter. He's so connected he traditionally has been tipped by insiders and breaks news on social media before it's reported by the team. Note this is the product of years of work. A great example of this an Instagram post I shared years back from the NBA summer league. Click on this link that shares a picture of Woj interviewing 100 insiders in a row outside a public restroom in a Vegas arena, with the following caption:

"This is Adrian Wojnarowski, known to the basketball community as "WOJ". When you're following all your free agent news in the NBA, WOJ is the guy who breaks 80% of that news. He works for Yahoo, and as evidence for how the NBA feels about both Yahoo and WOJ having the power he does, consider the scene. He's taping video segments with guests, and the NBA put him OUTSIDE THE LADIES BATHROOM on the concourse with all the fans. To his credit, WOJ doesn't care. He just powered through it and solidified his power base for further rumors/news by interviewing 200 people. If you're into Game of Thrones, he's Varys."

Translation - most dominant stars in any industry have put the work in to arrive at their position of dominance.

But nothing last forever - especially total dominance.

Meet Woj's challenger - Shams Charania, a writer at The Athletic. He goes by "Shams", a natural counter to "Woj". And in the last year, he's eroded Woj's position of dominance, breaking as much news as Woj, to the point where followers of the craft are mocking Woj for reporting news that Shams beat him to, if only by seconds or a few minutes on Twitter.  

Which begs the question - how do established stars loose their grip to an upstart in any industry?  Some thoughts:

1--They start coasting and it creates an opening for a rising star.

2--The rising star is the unique talent willing to put in the crazy amount of focus and time to present a challenge to the incumbent.

3--The market changes - and the rising star connects with a new portion of a market that the incumbent isn't connected to.

Most of the time, all 3 factors are in play. For the Woj/Shams battle, I'm not sure that Woj has been coasting. But without question, Shams has put the time in, and just as importantly, he seems connected to a different part of the information market than Woj. In the case of Shams, that's being connected to players in a direct way in addition to the front offices in the NBA (Woj's territory).

Shams put in the time and connected with a new marketplace. As a result, most consider him even to Woj, who once was 100% dominant in breaking news.

Connection to HR? Understand the stars of today in your company won't be dominant forever. Be on the lookout for the rising stars who have the work ethic and focus to be top performers and support them. Note that youth alone doesn't give someone the right to challenge the star. They have to be talented, and just as importantly, they have to put the crazy work in to get to the level of the incumbent.

Who's the Woj at your company?  Do you have a Shams?

Talent pipeline 101.


Will Forcing Interviews for Women and Minority Candidates Improve Results? (HR Famous Podcast)

In a word, yes.

I've written about the NFL's Rooney Rule here. Go dig into that for a primer. 

The whole point to the Rooney Rule is opening up the perspective of a walled-off hiring manager/executive.  That's why WMware announced a new commitment to include a minority and female candidate in every search at the company.

We're talking about this at length this week on The HR Famous Podcast. Take a listen below!

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

In episode 21 of the HR Famous Podcast, long-time HR leaders (and friends) Tim Sackett, Kris Dunn, and Jessica Lee come together to talk about The Rooney Rule and VMware’s new commitment to include a minority and female candidate in every search at the company. The gang also discusses how often they’ve filled up their car tanks during quarantine, and something called Generation Zoom.

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

Show Highlights:

1:30 – How many times have you filled your gas tank during quarantine? Jlee has only filled her tank once since March!

3:00 – Who doesn’t love a best friend duo that runs together? KD and Tim went running in Celebration, Florida together. KD was on Zillow on his phone the entire time they ran in the community and Tim was dying.

5:45 – KD has been reading a lot about “Generation Zoom”; our younger generation that has been learning through distance learning. Jlee talks about how her young kids may have trouble learning in the future since they are losing a lot of development time in school.

9:00 – Do you think there will be a dip in SAT and ACT scores in the coming year? Tim is interested to see where the data falls.

10:45 – First major topic of the day: The Rooney Rule. This NFL rule places interview quotas for minority candidates for coaching positions. Tim talks about how more minority candidates have been put into the interview process and what it’s meant in hiring minority coaches.

16:00 – Jlee discusses her own personal experience getting an opportunity that she might not have based on her resume and how she relates to the experience of Mike Tomlin.

18:00 – Tim talks about some negative views on the Rooney Rule and how often coaching positions are planned and picked out far in advance.

20:00 – KD and Jlee bring up another positive of the Rooney Rule, in that it forces forcing hiring managers to look harder and potentially finding special people that they may not have been able to find before, even if it’s not for that particular position.

22:30 – Second topic of the day: VMware’s CEO (Patrick Gelsinger) announced their company would commit to interviewing a POC and a woman for every single position. KD thinks this sounds similar to the Rooney Rule. KD and Tim praises VMware and other companies who have come out recently with new processes and practices to help diversify their workforce.

26:20 – Jlee brings up potential backlash from recruiters and other hiring managers. She notes that leaders need to give recruiters some leeway in order to reach performance metrics and new interviewing goals.

29:40 – How will this new hiring practice work in practice? KD brings up the self ID process and when it comes into play in the hiring process. Jlee discusses the data recruiters will be giving to hiring managers and how they will report that they are meeting a certain requirement.

33:00 – KD reads VMware’s CEO statement again to Tim and gets his reaction. Tim thinks there are many aspects to this new rule that need to be addressed in order to be successful in finding the best possible candidates.

36:00 – Pat (CEO of VM Ware) is a new best friend of the pod!

36:20 – Jlee and KD praise the leadership at VMware for going ahead with this announcement and implementation of the rule instead of getting bogged down in details and complaints.

38:45 – Jlee and KD talk about the concept of equality vs diversity, with KD bringing up Salesforce’s move years ago to grab the high ground of equality.

41:00 – HR Famous would like to congratulate Patrick Gelsinger from VMware on a job well done with their new version of the Rooney Rule.

 


Do You Have a Direct Report With Writing Talent? You Should!

Look, I get it - some of you won't be hiring for a while based on COVID and the resulting economic struggles. 

Which makes now the perfect time to look at your team of direct reports and ask the following question:

"Do I have someone to carry the writing load in this department?"

I'm not talking about hiring a writer as a standalone position. I'm talking about the need for you to always have someone on your team of direct reports with writing as a key secondary skill. Why is this important? Because you need someone to take the great reactions/outcomes/action plans from you and your team and create effective communications to the masses.

Simply put, you can be a great leader with a great team - but if you can't effectively win in how you communicate what's going on to the masses, you'll never realize your potential as a leader or a department.

If you're not managing others yet and think you have the ability to write well in a professional setting, it's time for you to figure out a way to make writing one of your key differentiators.

The topic of great writing on teams is why I taped an episode of BEST HIRE EVER (my podcast on recruiting topics) with Lance Haun, a former HR pro turned professional writer and editor. Take a look at the rundown for the podcast below and give a listen (please subscribe and rate if you like it).

--KD

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

In Episode 5 of BEST HIRE EVER, Kris Dunn connects with Lance Haun (Starr Conspiracy, ERE, Former HR Pro) to talk about why hiring at least one great writer for your team makes incredible sense as a leader – regardless of your functional area or line of business. Lance and KD chop it up about how to spot, find and engage a candidate with writing skills in your hiring process, and how professionals looking to leverage their writing skills for career gain can get noticed.

Never satisfied with one great topic, KD and Lance also explore the Haun family’s history of sustainable meat and how Lance’s dad sees an explosion of business at his butcher shop when things like COVID hit the American marketplace.

Please subscribe (Apple) and follow (Spotify) to get the latest delivered to you.  Email subscribers click here if you don't see the player below:

SHOW HIGHLIGHTS:

1:35 - KD starts by calling Lance Haun a killer writer. Lance blushes and begs off and calls his writing history a humbling experience.

2:04 -  KD breaks down Lance. HR pro at the start, starting one of the first HR blogs, then becomes a professional writer in our space at ERE and Starr Conspiracy. Lance describes when he knew writing was his differentiator.

7:30 -  Lance talks about “social proof” as being the addictive side of writing. Translation – reactions to your writing are good.

9:05: Lance and KD talk about the need for great talent to have writing skills. Lance talks about learning styles still including and being influenced by the written word. KD balks and says he thought that the world was being changed forever by video. #joking

12:55 – What’s the best way for a leader to test and confirm that someone can add value as a writer on their team?  Lance recommends communicating more than normal via email as a test – long email threads.  In addition, getting into someone’s process of creating written work product is key to understand their approach to the craft.

16:00 – Lance talks about knowing who the communicators are in your workplace and how that can help drive internal mobility in your company.

19:30 – KD talks about why all leaders – even if they are great writers – need to hire for writing skills so that leader can become an editor rather than a production writer.  #delegate

20:00 – Lance and KD talk about the right way to show your writing skills as a candidate. Maximizing your LinkedIn profile and presence is the path of least resistance and greatest reach for most professionals.

24:00 – Lance and KD talk about negative bias that may exist towards professionals who share their thoughts via blogs, LinkedIn and social.  Being vocal and sharing your thoughts may limit overall opportunity, but you’ll be a candidate of choice for many of the companies and hiring managers that remain.

28:30 – Lance talks about his dad, the butcher shop and how his dad’s business has gone up during the COVID crisis. KD thinks Lance could be the Gary V of meat. Lance talks about surprising his dad by running Facebook ads to drive traffic to the shop during normal times.  Haunsmeats.com


Links for Lance:

Lance Haun on LinkedIn

Lance Haun on Twitter

Haun’s Meats in Walla Walla WA!

KD's GPS

Kinetix

The HR Capitalist

Fistful of Talent

Boss Leadership Training Series

Kris Dunn on LinkedIn

Kris Dunn on Twitter

Kris Dunn on Instagram

 


VIDEO: Using BHAGs as a Goal Setting Technique for High Performers...

Big, hairy, audacious goals, or BHAGs, are visionary, strategy statements designed to focus a group of people around a common initiative. They traditional differ from our other goal setting techniques because BHAGS are usually 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.

Even though BHAGs are generally goals for companies and collective groups, smart managers are increasingly using them for individuals as well. I explain the merits of using BHAGs in this fashion in the following episode of TalentTalks from Saba Software.

Take a listen (email subscribers click through for video below if you don't see it) and hit me in the comments with a BHAG that's been useful in your career or managing a talented direct report!!! 


Working Anywhere Means Elite Cities Are Being Shorted...

How's COVID going for you?

I know, what a freaking mess. Nice post by Paul Hebert today over at Fistful of Talent, who's Gostalking about the need for HR Pros to become polymaths, individuals whose knowledge spans a significant number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. 

Sounds a lot like what we need in an imploding world are great HR Generalists.

Let's talk about one trend specifically - the idea that people can work anywhere (white collar jobs) in a Post-COVID World.

Do you believe that? If you do, then as a great HR pro, you must adjust your world view to de-prioritize elite cities as a "must have" location for your organization. One company of many - Stitch Fix - is making the move that many of us must contemplate as talent professionals. Stich Fix is getting the hell out of California. More from SFgate.com:

San Francisco-based online personal styling service Stitch Fix is laying off 1,400 stylists in California between now and the end of September, affecting 18% of its workforce, per a statement released on Monday. The online retailer said that after the cuts are made, it will look to hire back in lower-cost states.

The company's model, built around stylists helping subscribers select clothing that is then shipped to customers each month, has been one of the few major success stories in the subscription shopping world.

CEO and founder Katrina Lake, who started the company in 2011, said "all of our California-based stylists will be offered the opportunity to relocate to the new roles in other states."

The company said that the cost of operating in California was becoming increasingly difficult, and plans to hire stylists in other lower-cost states such as Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.

Man. If a company like Stich Fix - fashion, style, etc. - is getting out of the Elite City/Elite State game, then you probably need to fire up Talent Neuron from Gartner and figure out where lower cost talent is stateside as well.

Simply put - if people can and will work anywhere, then your ability to find more talent and potentially pay it less grows exponentially. Facebook made a similar move recently - not by firing people in California, but by acknowledging if people choose to work remote and move to a lower cost area, their salary would likely be adjusted for the labor group/area in question.

It's Comp 101. Covid just accelerates the fact that "place" and "location" matters less (note it still matters, but less). We did a decade's worth of transformation in 3 months. 

With this change in mind, the woman who just graduated from Valdosta State (GA) with a degree in fashion and doesn't want to/can't move to an elite city now has a chance to get a job with a premier company.  Same with Facebook - if you're a great developer, you now have a better chance at working for an elite company - without moving from your podunk little town.

Start firing up the research on lower cost talent with the same skills, HR pros.

Side note: My understanding is that Stitch Fix stylists have to serve men looking to upgrade their style. That reminds me of Crazy Stupid Love, with Ryan Gosling but instead featuring a remote stylist trying to convince a 55-year old accountant to give up double pleats. 

Maybe hazard pay for those stylists. 

(Clip with Gosling shopping with Carrell below, email subscribers click through if you don't see it).