Learn how to become a HR strategic animal

Hello  «Attendee»,
You are invited to the following event:

Achieving HR Excellence through Six SIgma

Event to be held at the following time, date, and location:

Thursday, April 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM - to - Friday, April 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM (EDT) Residence Inn Seaworld 11000 Westwood Boulevard Orlando, FL 32821 View Map

Attend Event

Share this event:

Learn how to become an HR Strategic Animal

Earn 13 HRCI Business credits and learn how to advance your HR operation into being part of the strategic goals and initiatives of your organization.
Join us April 11-12, 2014 in Orlando for a 2-day seminar on Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma.
For more information go to http://www.dbaiconsulting.com/pages/HR500.php or to register go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/achieving-hr-excellence-through-six-sigma-tickets-9538260193

I Know I am Right. Because it is my job!!!!

Several years ago I walked into my favorite bookstore and was fascinated by a book on the shelf. What caught my eye was the bright orange cover and the band of duct tape across the cover. The book was Chip and Dan Heath’s first book titled “Made to Stick.” Since then I have been looking forward to reading their other works. It is no different for their newest work titled “Decisive.”

In Chapter 7 titled “Ooch”, they talk about a company which scheduled interviews for an open position. After the interview each candidate was asked to present an example of their work for review. In order to remove any sense of bias on the part of the interview team, the work examples were numbered as to disguise the source. When all the work examples were submitted the management reviewed the collections and made a judgment as to who would best fit their open position based on the works alone. The candidate that was ultimately chosen was the individual that those conducting the interviews, felt were least likely to do the job to company standards. They were dead wrong in their assumption based on the interview. The Heath’s make the claim that our interviews are less predictive of job performance than work sample or even peer ratings of past performance. They even state that if we provided our candidates with a simple intelligence test it would predict performance levels better than the interview.

So here is the question. As HR professionals we tell our managers, our sourcing vendors and the organization that we can adequately evaluate prospective talent based on our prowess as interviewers, because we know we are right. We know we are right because that is our job. But what if we are not right? What if we have underserved our organization because we turned away the very talent the organization needed because we did not think based on the interview that the candidate fit?

I have been through interviews during my career which in looking back made no sense as to whether I could do the job. I have to confess in my management roles when I was doing recruiting I fell into the trap of thinking my interview skills were proficient enough that I could make the right decision. Part of our tendency is to consider who we like or who we feel we can trust when we interview candidates. However if we don’t like someone does not mean that we will always find, locate and attract the diverse skills we need for the new marketplace. Some of my consultant colleagues suggest that the behavioral interview might improve the success rate but those too can be based on our views of the responses.

Email me at dan@dbaiconsulting.com and let me know how  accurate are your predictive skills in interviews and are you short changing your organization by eliminating skills you might need for the future.

Do these wrds still have meaning in today's world?

Recognize these words and do they have any meaning in today's marketplace?

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

 150-years ago my 5th cousin removed, President Abraham Lincoln, uttered these words that every American child has heard at one time or another. The question is whether over a century later these words hold any value in today's rapidly changing world. Clearly this could be used to express a particular political doctrine, but that it not my intent. The intent is what message does this drive to our organizations on how we treat our human capital assets. Easiest way to present my view is to break it down into several segments:

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

We are involved in a major shift today. We are not talking about inequality in compensation or the same ilk. We are talking about a shift in perspective in which we are all part of the same team. The idea of command and control is passé. Our new managers now need to know how to be coaches and leaders not “managers.”

The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

Lincoln was partially correct in that in many organizations what you do will not survive over time t the outside world. The corporate graveyard is strewn with names that have joined their brethren but we forget who they are. However whether they are still fully functional thriving or part of the graveyard, they have delivered a clear message. The message being that as organizations we have a job to do. That job is to create organizations which are aligned, are innovative and are continuously looking to create strategic initiatives which enhance both the organization and its human capital assets. We do this through our words, our actions and our organizational values.

Big red bulls eye changes policy - sign of the times or bad move?

As I do most mornings I was watching Good Morning America and across the bottom of the screen in their news scroll was an item which stated that Target had announced that they were removing from their employment application all questions pertaining to criminal records or offenses. Which poses the question above—is this a sign of the times or a bad move?

There is much that can be said for either response. In a letter dated August 29, 2013 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a response to a request to reconsider their April 2012 policy statement titled Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that there was the potential for disparate treatment under Title VII because of the tendency for certain demographic criteria being more inclined to be subject to criminal records than others.  The EEOC never said that it was illegal to ask questions regarding criminal background checks; it only said that the use of them should be carefully analyzed to insure that you are not eliminating good candidates solely on the existence of a criminal record. Consider this as an example.

In order to keep the privacy of the parties in tact in will not name the parties, but there is a case in this country of an individual who had sexual relations with his girlfriend who was 15 when he was 17. He has been labeled as a Sexual Predator and a convicted felon. Would you look at his application for employment and immediately rule him out? Also on the news this morning was the case of a man released from prison on a murder charge, which DNA proved he never committed 20 years after the fact? Would you rule him out for possible employment?

Do not take the tone of this post incorrectly. I firmly believe that there is a proper time and place for criminal background checks. In another life, while working for an international security agency I completed background checks for a national media organization. If you are dealing with a position that entails access to huge sums of money, do them. If you are dealing with issues that affect national security, do them. If you are going to be working with the vulnerable parts of our society (children and elderly) do them. But if you dealing with a rank and file employee be darn sure that you can justify their use.

This brings us to the question at hand. Target has said they are going to remove the questions pertaining to criminal records from their employment application. In a post on ThinkProgress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/29/2851711/target-employment-offenders/) Target stated that starting at the beginning of next year, Target will wait until making a provisional job offer before inquiring about a prospective employee’s criminal record, giving candidates the chance to make their case before an employer passes judgment. The company’s decision comes just a few months after Minnesota — where Target is headquartered — approved a “Ban the Box” statute.

“The Box” can be one of the main barriers of re-entry for people with a criminal past. When an employer sees that box checked, it can be an automatic disqualifier. And the practice is so widespread that it can really hurt the chances for employment for ex-offenders. Surveys show that between 60 and 75 percent of people with a criminal past can’t find a job for up to a year after they’ve been released.

Employment discrimination along these lines can also contribute to higher recidivism rates; when former inmates can’t find a job, they might feel that illegal activities — say drug dealing or theft — are their only inroad toward having money to live.

Does your organization use blanket criminal question son the application? Does a positive response automatically generate a denial of employment? Can you justify that policy? Would love to hear from you on your thoughts.

Would you bake only a third of a pie?

It is coming up on the holiday season and some of you will begin to bake cakes and pies for the celebrations which soon follow. Many of you will follow recipes that have been handed down over generations in your families. But what if someone came to you and said “This year why don’t you only make a third of a pie?” Sound ridiculous?

We in essence ask the same question when we make the statement we only do lean or we only do six sigma. This is like cooking a third of a pie. Let me explain the argument. 

See more at http://humanresourcestrategist.wordpress.com