Big is not necessarily Better

I admit it I have an addiction. Back in 2001 I was introduced to the writings of Kathleen O'Neal Gear and her husband W. Michael Gear who have written a series of 23 historical fiction books centered around the lives of the North American Native Americans(http://www.gear-gear.com)They are fast reads but full of twists and turns. Their latest one is called People of the Back Sun in which the Standing Stone village is manned by about 400 warriors and they are up against the opponent who is taking on the Standing Village with a force of several thousand warriors. Through out the book there are reference to how the matron of the Standing Stone village is looking at things from a strategic perspective as she tries to plan a response to this elephant at her door.

Turn your concentration away from the Gear book and think for a moment how do you respond when the elephant is knocking on the door of your organization? Many organizations take the road of trying to imitate the elephant. The view is that the only way for you to win in this market is for you to become the other elephant in the room. Not only is this not practical it seldom works. As the high matron did in the Gear book, you have another path which more than likely will succeed more often than trying to match the elephant.

 In People of the Black Sun, the high matron took stock of the assets she had and reviewed what actions she could take strategically to combat the elephant. She reviewed her assets and what her ultimate strategic goals were. How can she utilize those assets to deliver a win faster, cheaper and better than the elephant. Consider these strategic responses:

1. If you are worth your salt you have benchmarked the elephant - Your benchmark survey has shown that the elephant is trying to reach the point where they have the largest proportion of the market share. You on the other hand have looked at what they are doing and you strategically strive for a larger share of customer.
2. Look at their human capital assets - What skills do they have to bring to the market and how can you utilize your human capital assets to match or bring to the table skills which will allow you to do the same job in a better or unique way which will outflank the elephant.
3. Review their marketing materials - Whether it is their web presence or their social media presence what message are they bringing to the marketplace. Is your message a copycat or can you show you have a different message to bring

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Really, is not my job difficult enough?

Here we are on the weekend before Christmas and the Iowa Supreme Court handed us an early "gift" Before I explain what the gift was, let me take you back in time to when Bobby Darin was still performing and he sag the following words:

"WelI … I don’t know what you got But it’s got me and baby I’m hooked Like a fish in the sea. You make angles call from above. You could make the Devil fall in love. An-a … who-o-o wouldn’t fall for irresistible you."

Over the past several decades we have seen the requirements for our talent acquisition efforts become more difficult. We have to be sure that the job requirements are bona fide occupational qualifications - in other words the requirements for the job actually meet the skills needed to perform the duties of the position. We can't tell someone that we will not hire them based on gun ownership, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, where we came from or health status. Now the Iowa Supreme Court adds a new twist.

In the case before them, a Dentist had hired a dental technician a decade ago. He admitted to his wife that he could not keep his eyes off of her. The wife's response was that either she goes or I do. The Dentist fired her.

The Iowa Supreme Court decided that it is perfectly legal to fire someone who is irresistible . Now let me get this straight, everyone of us whether male or female has walked into a work environment and found that employee who is stunningly attractive. In the majority of cases we may not take any actions on those beliefs but it now becomes, at least in Iowa, grounds for taking away someones livelihood. Not because she or he has done anything wrong but because their appearance can jeopardize a marriage. So does that mean going forward we need to add to the job description that an individual cannot be too attractive for fear of distracting the workplace? We are not talking about a worker undergoing sexual harassment, we are talking about a worker who just plain looks too good.

I apologize to HR.net for stealing his format. Steve I promise it is a one time only event.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

The World is a better place because of those who refuse to believe they can't fly

This afternoon we continued our family tradition and attended a performance by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra who introduced a new show entitled the Lost Christmas Eve. The center piece of the performance was a story of a business man who years earlier had the unfortunate luck of losing his wife during child birth and having a supposedly disabled child who he essentially disowned. It was a fitting response to some of the feelings that I have undergone in the last 48 hours. Those feelings ranged from utter rage to utter respect. Forty three years ago I graduated with a BA in Education and spent 6 years in the classroom working with some of the age groups from Sandy Hook Elementary School. I can sympathize with the efforts sometimes to naught that these teachers went through. On the other side is the rage from understanding that these children are the ones who believe that they can fly, society has not molded their thinking to show them that this is probably not going to happen. I have the honor of being able to still stay in contact with a number of my former students today.

My wife and I are considering relocating to a town much like we grew up in which was molded much like Newtown. In a past life (LOL) we lived in New Fairfield, CT which is very similar in nature to Newtown and in fact is only minutes from there. So we can understand the violation the citizenry is feeling at the moment.

However there is another perspective we have to consider. Whether we are talking about your local school or our workplace, the implied environment speaks a bout providing a place that is safe and healthy in return for the use of our intelligence capabilities. But due to the work of one political faction we are striving away from that expectation. We live in a world that due to certain efforts has become a world centered around violence or the potential for violence. Consider that here in Florida the 2010 Census tells us that there are 19,057,542 residents and 1,000,000 of them have concealed weapons permits. This same political faction takes what ever steps they need to in order to pass a plethora of regulations across the country that tells our schools and businesses that even though you are responsible for delivering a safe workplace, you can't stoop your employees from being a weapon to the workplace.

It is time we change that environment. I have an extended family member who hunts to put food on the table. When I lived in Iowa I owned both a rifle and a hand gun and went hunting. So I do not object to the concepts in the 2nd amendment. I do however have a serious problem with open markets for weapons that have no useful purpose other than to maim and kill humans. I do have a problem with policies in the workplace which increase the potential for us to provide our human capital with a non-safe environment. We lower the productivity of the human capital assets when part of their concentration at work is on whether someone, no matter what the reason, decides the solution to their arguments with society is to start shooting. This is true whether we are talking about a movie theater in Aurora, a college in Virginia or a small elementary school where parents sent their kids because they believed the violence would not make its face known there.

We are a human resource strategist and it is our mission to show organizations of all sizes how to run a more productive work environment. Part of that discussions, based on Sandy Hook, has to be changing the philosophy of the workplace. We need to tell the political factions that our mission is enable corporate policies which protect our asset -our business as well as our human capital assets. As managers we need to let the officeholders that represent us that enough is enough. If you can prove that you need a weapon for a reasonable response to your environment, fine. But that does not include weapons which are designed to kill other than hunting.  As managers we need to stop bucking under the pressure from factions which understand only verbatim response to writings from decades ago. Consider the several hundred survivors of the Sandy Hook episode and  tell me how we explain to them the rationale from allowing the prevalence of weapons to increase with out boundaries. How do you explain to the parents that just lost 20 children that the government policies within this area are fine and it is just a freak occurrence by someone who may have had mental problems and it is not representative of society as a whole?

To my fellow members of management and Human Resource in particular, stop for a moment and think about whether your professional responsibility allows you to sleep at night when we fall short on providing that safe workplace that our students and fellow workers not only expect but demand.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

How do I add Value to the Relationship?

I recently was involved in a conference call with a prospective client who was asking me whether I would be available to come speak to their office meeting about how the staff could work closer with corporate HR professionals. I got off the call and began to look back to the time in my career when I was in the external recruiter's seat and what was important to me to establish that relationship.

So for what it is worth, here are my thoughts.

1. The Toyota Production System talks to us about GEMBA. It is a Japanese term for go and see. I fully realize that we are in tough economic times but it is worth the investment to take the time to go and see the client's operations. Meet face to face with both HR and the hiring managers. This is not a sales call this is a listening call. Find out exactly what their want and needs are. When I worked as a full time recruiter I had approached a Fortune 1000 corporation who loathed working with recruiters totally. I asked for a 30 minute meeting and went to his offices and met with HR and we talked about the Voice of the Customer as to what his wants and desires were. By listening to that conversation I became the only recruiter he would work with.
2. The recruiting profession does not have the greatest reputation out in the marketplace and one of the reasons is a lack of ethics. Respect that the client is paying your bills and treat them accordingly. Once again when I was working int he field, I was the VP of a firm and with the blessings of the President of the firm I sat down with the outplacement director of one of the largest Certified Public Accounting firms in the world and arranged that we would receive the name of all the staff that were not going to be offered partner as long as we did not poach the current staff from their clients. Went back to the office and explained this to an office meeting. Within a half-hour one of the banks did exactly what we said we would not do. The President of the firms comment when informed of the actions was that if you had any business ethics you did not belong working for the firm. We lost a source of good talent, a good client and a loss of reputation in the marketplace.
3. HR has a responsibility to their organization to find the right person for the right job at the right time and in the right place. As a recruiter you have the ability to assist in this goal by not weeding out talent for arbitrary reasons. Several years ago a recruiter posted on the Internet that she would not refer someone to a client who had grey hair.AH I HAVE BEEN GREY SINCE AGE 19. Nothing like implied age discrimination.While I know you want that check you also have the responsibility to let your client know when they are planning on taking action which might be deemed illegal.
4. HR has the responsibility to make it clear to recruiters what the skills are that are required for the positions but also need to make sure the recruiter understands the culture of the organization. A recent survey said that hiring managers are more likely to hire for culture fit rather than skill fit. One survey went so far as to say that they would more likely hire someone they could be friends with over whether the could do the job.
5. In #3 above we talked about the role HR has to play within the organization, but you have an equally important role and that is you nee to remind your client that unless someone truly misses the bona-fide occupational qualifications rule, the goal is no to rule them out but rather to rule them in. I fully realize that you want that check but that does not mean that you should tolerate actions which may be illegal. You have a vast readily available talent pool at your disposal, don't rule out those who are in a position due to no fault of their own.
6. HR needs to be sure that the position that they are recruiting for actually exists. It is unfair to the candidates, the hiring managers, the organization the recruiter and your organizational reputation be referring individuals to organizations for no reason.Likewise recruiters should not as a rule pitch candidates to HR or a hiring manager on the hope that there is a job available.
7. I do not know how you work individually, but i never stockpiled resumes. Each and every search assignment was conducted as a clean slate. I referred to those who were in my Rolodex but I never used them as the sole source of candidates. I also did not rule people out because of the status of their employment.
8. I have a business partner, Tony Alessandra, who suggests the way to success is through consultative selling. In order to add the value to the relationship the goal is for you and HR to work as equal partners in the process.Both of you will come out of it with a  win-win situation.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

The Diversity Scam: We talk the talk but do we walk the walk

We have just recently undergone a decisive election era in which some very strong views have been expressed. Some of those comments made me take a moment and reflect on the status of diversity within this country and the workplace in particular.

One of the facts that became abundantly clear is that there is a dramatic change in the demographics of the society in which we live. Change is tough but when the majority suddenly finds itself in the minority it raises a wide range of responses. And this is where the Diversity Scam arises.

Let me lay some ground work before discussing my reasoning. We find ourselves in a rapidly changing business space. An organization only succeeds when it can meet two very interdependent factors The first is that we only succeed when we are competitive within the market. We constantly need to be aware and cognizant of the needs of our customers.Th other side of the coin is we must be innovative with what we offer to the marketplace. With the changing demographic we need to be open to the inclusion of a wide variety of ideas and backgrounds with the hiring of human capital assets. The problem seems to be , from my conversations with fellow HR professionals, that many of the members of the changing demographic seem to want to move to their organizations and organizations. Why?

The management tiers of our organizations have traditionally been occupied by white male members of our society. With this they have very set ways as to the methods that organizations should operate under. That philosophy is being challenged. The establishment is uncomfortable with what thi means for the future of their workplace.

The message from our customers and society is that diversity in the workplace is a necessity. So in order to appear as though we are part of the current global environment , the message is that all of our communications pieces from the recruiting brochure to the annual report sate that diversity is a key component of our strategy. But look at the organization as a whole and what do you find?

While there are many exceptional examples of organizations which walk the walk and talk the talk. The far greater numbers extend the message through the communication devices but never intend to follow through on it unless they are forced to jump through the hoops of the EEO-1 form. Instead what diversity is found within the organizations is restricted to the low paying lower levels of the organization. Restricted at the lower levels where what diversity does exist can be pushed off into back corner of the organization. These human capital assets are not exposed to the tools to move up the corporate ladder to reach that corner office.

The difficulty is that with "those people" now becoming the majority in the workplace, just talking the talk will not make the organization more sustainable. In fact it will make the organization less likely to succeed. Like most scams, the perpetrators eventually get caught and it comes back to haunt.

As we reach the Thanksgiving holiday season and the opening of the run to the end of year, we as organizational management need to re-assess our views and our initiatives. We need to understand and accept that the inclusion of the new normal demographics makes the diversity scam totally unacceptable in the marketplace.

It is time that organizational management come to recognize that they need to change their views of the workplace. First, this is not your father's company anymore. The demographics of the global workplace have changed and it will not survive with a less than true message. Second, the new generational workers are much more comfortable in an open society whether it is life or work and they will force you in the direction of full diversity And finally as a member of your organization's management team your goal is to protect the ability of the organization to survive into eternity. We can not do that if we purposely forget about a large percentage of the society within which we operate.

So stop for a moment and really analyze are you both talking the talk and walking the walk in regards to diversity. Tell me whether your organization is part of the scam or really believes in the inclusion of a wide range of views and attitudes represented by the changed demographics within your portals.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

I am only worth $.15 to you, really!!!!!

In the past couple of weeks we have seen and heard from a number of business owners who have tried to put a price tag on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act cloaked in the argument as to why they have to add costs to their ultimate end users- the customer.

Whether it is the owner of Papa John's Pizza or the franchise owner of Denny's they seem to be forgetting one very important piece of the picture. In each case where would these organizations be if their human capital made the concerted decision that since we have been categorized in such a low number, we are going to go where we are more appreciated?

The demographics of our businesses have changed. The old adage that the proof is in the profit has morphed into how can we show that our human capital asset are a vital part of our organization. Telling the world that we have to raise our prices $.15 because we have to provide the benefits to our employes to make them more productive for the organization leaves the wrong impression in that regard.

According to a presentation at the 2010 SHRM conference in San Diego, a study sponsored by Kronos and conducted by Mercer found that unplanned absences cost the organizations in this country 8.7 percent of the total payroll costs.

The Kronos study revealed the following data points:

• The combined total costs for incidental and extended disability absences — the kinds of absences employers try to minimize — add up to 8.7 percent of payroll. This figure is more than half the cost of healthcare, measured at 13.6 percent of payroll in Mercer’s 2009 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans.
• The total costs of all major absence categories— including direct and indirect costs —average 35 percent of base payroll. These costs range from 29 percent for exempt employees, 36 percent for nonexempt salaried, 39 percent for nonunion hourly, and 38 percent for union hourly.
• Incidental unplanned absences also result in the highest net loss of productivity per day (i.e., work that is missed or postponed by not being covered by others): 19 percent versus 13 percent for planned absences and 16 percent for extended absences.
• The number of incidental unplanned absence days per employee per year averaged 5.4 days across all employee classes, and ranged from 3.9 for exempts, to 4.9 for nonexempt salaried, to 5.8 for nonunion hourly, and 7.3 for union hourly.

Based on these data points explain to me the logic of the Papa John's et al comments. If I am correct in my assumptions that the CEO of Papa John's and the Denny's franchisee are not capable of being in every facility that their organization's runs 24/7 then making the investment in a healthier workforce in the long run means that the organization actually saves sources of funding for the profit down the road.

There are numerous examples in the business world of when human capital left in mass the organization rapidly dissolves and goes out of existence. The human capital assets of today's business environment expect to be appreciated. Take for example Gen Y - if they do not feel a part of the organization they are gone in an average of 18 months. So do you risk alienating the next generation of your workers by telling them that their value to your organization is $.15 per customer. I would think not.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Productivity Press to publish "Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma" in 2013

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

I am the Victim!!!!

There has been much in the news around the presidential election about certain people taking assistance because they think of themselves as victims. Let me say from the outset this is not a political rant. It however is a consideration about the concept of being a victim in our global workplace.

I recently finished reading Dave Ulrich's latest book, HR from the Outside In,(which by the way I highly recommend be read by all HR professionals) It looks at the global HR profession from the perspective of the latest Human Resource Competency Survey. In the book Dave Ulrich and his team make reference to a quote from William James, In one sentence William James established the essence of this blog post. He said

We are not victims of the world we see; we are victims of the way we see the world

Stop and consider that for a moment. We on a consistent basis hear claims that the government is against us; the labor unions are trying to destroy our businesses and society. We hear that the reason we can't expand our businesses is because of too much red tape and regulations. But is that really the reality of the situation? Are we victims of the world we see? Or are we victims of our own piece of reality?

Lets take just one aspect of the reality here and consider the two perspectives. If we picture the scenario that one of the problems organizations are having is the difficulty in hiring workers to fill needs with the organization and compare the views:

We are Victims of the world we see

If this is your view of the world, you can argue that the difficulty facing the organization is due to the fact that the world economic environment is in dire straits.The policies of global governments are hindering the advancement of our organizations. The solution to the problem is we need to cut costs and the easiest way to achieve that is to cut headcount. We therefore have to overload the current staff because the work still has to get done. Besides have you seen lately what happens when we post a position? Have you seen all the untrained people who apply?  How can I possibly have time with the other responsibilities I have to get through them all?

We are victims of the way we see the world

Have you seen the range of complaints from the EEOC lately? They are literally plastered with examples of organizations that take this view of the world into the workplace. The range of complaints are clear demonstrations of the fact that these organizations think that they are victims of the world they see.  Consider these examples:

An organization refused to hire a pregnant woman as a group leader - We can't hire them as they don't represent the image we want. Besides they won't stay with the organization after the arrival of the child anyway.

An organization placed an employee of different color in a lower position than a white employee - Those people are always the rebels and don't like following rules so we need their services but not as bad as the other employees. Besides they don't want to work anyway. Just look around town and they are always hanging out on the street corners with nothing to do.

Years ago Napoleon Hill wrote that what the mind can conceive and believe it will achieve. So if you take the position that you are the victim of the world you see, sorry t say you will be that victim. If you expect that a certain employee is nothing but trouble, they will be. If you categorize a group of employees under certain characteristics, they will be that characteristic.

It is your choice whether you view the world we see as part of a grandeur scheme or as a victim. Dictionary.com  tells us that a victim is a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency. So when you look at the world do you create your own reality by suggesting out of ignorance that you are the victim in the business world?

I would strongly suggest that in order to bring this global marketplace back to a point of strength we need to learn to work together, not as the victim of some imaginary stereotype of a group of people or conditions that you face. It is your choice whether you continue to segregate your organization from the new normal or join the global village.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

We Fought the War but Jut Learned we Lost not Won

I had planned a new blog post with this title on a different topic but several recent events has turned me in a different direction.

The early settlers of this country, including some of my relatives, came to this unknown territory called North America to escape religious persecution and the limits to free speech. In the 1950's and 1960's we lived through the Civil Rights movement to make the point that we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness without being ostracized because we don't think or act like the "norm" of our culture, what ever that is.

In the past 48 hours I have witnessed the problems when we make stereotypes the basis of our human interactions. I was in a local store to return an item when the customer before me tried to return a purchase and the UPC on the item did not match the receipt. After he left the store employee turned to one of her co-workers and said "THEY try to that all the time" in front of other customers. The Arab Spring in the middle east was centered around the right to have more freedoms, including the right to think and behave outside the societal norms. I open up Social Media and find frequent postings that really hinge on outright hatred to those who don't meet this picture of the person who is like them.

Here is the problem- when we begin to stereotype individuals through this filter, we demean the society and more important our workplace.As an organization we only succeed when we discover new and exciting innovation regarding the products. This innovation only comes from the act of collaboration and it only works when we recognize the value of varying views. When you enter the collaborated process by discounting someone views because they do not think, look or act like you do you have diminished the contribution to the innovation process of your organization and this have lowered the sustainability of the organization.

The poet Adrienne Rich may have delineated the environment better than I can. I have paraphrased it slightly since we was meant for educators,, but she said "When someone with the authority, say, a manager, describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked into a mirror and saw nothing. Yet you know you exist and others like you, that is the game of mirrors...."

One of my social media friends, Dawn Khan, posted on Facebook yesterday the following suggestion - "Wow I wonder if you will miss those you left alienated after November with ranty,whacky conspiracy theory, hate mongering posts? It is not about my side or the high way, its about respecting that there are many people on the road driving besides us, and we all can be there..."

We are no longer confined to this little space you call home. We are involved in a global marketplace that is highly dependent on a wide range of views and beliefs.When segment of that marketplace dismisses another part of that same space based on stereotypes it as if we looked into the mirror and only saw us. POGO many years ago said during the advent of the environmental movement "We have met the enemy and they are us." We can be our own worse enemies by demeaning the rest of the world. Want to be the cream of the top in the marketplace, then make it a goal today to get rid of the stereotypes and recognize the worth of everyone in the workplace whether they are of different races, religions, abilities, ages, sexes. The differences are more important than a sterile view of the world.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Eaarn 13 Strategic HRCI credits by Attending this 2 days seminar

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Daniel Bloom & Associates, Inc. has introduced a proprietary course entitled Driving the Human Resource 500: Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma. It is designed to show HR professionals how to utilize continuous process improvement to enhance their human resource processes and explain HR in terms of organizational strategy. The class lasts for two days and has been pre-approved for 13 strategic continuing education by the Human Resource Certification Institute. In addition all successful participants will receive certification as a Six Sigma Yellow Belt.
Performance Institute classes are scheduled for: October 24-25,2012
For more information visit http://registration.performanceweb.org/event.php?id=617

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

I Can't Grow My Business

Well Mr. CEO let me suggest that you need to go back and take another look at your organizational culture. The reason we ask you to to do this is because you are faced with two choices. 

The first choice is what I call the culture of convenience. Your primary goal is to make a profit no matter who or what gets harmed along the way. You need a bigger plant so you build it. Never mind what it does to the environment around the plant. Never mind what it does to your employees and their lives. Every decision is made based on the profit level of the company and what it delivers back to the shareholders. Everything is based on its economic value to the bottom line. You are not alone, you have a lot of company.

The second choice is one triumphed by the Toyota Corporation. It is called servant leadership. While you still need to make a profit, the welfare of your community and people is of equal value to the organization. Every decision is based on its contribution to the sustainability of the organization.

So you tell me you can't grow your organization due to the level of regulations so let me ask you to go back in time and consider the following:

1. If you had treated all the applicant pool fairly we would not have a need to the EEOC and the Affirmative Action requirements;

2. If you had ensured that you protected the environment around the plant or offices we would not have a need for the EPA.

3. If you had followed the Quaker Capitalism model and ensured that all your dealings with the financial community was above board and a win-win for all parties we would not need to have a Sarbane-Oxley or Dodd-Frank;

4. If you woke up and understood that individuals with different abilities are some of your most valuable employees and gave them equal access to employment opportunities we would have no need for the American's With Disabilities Act.

I could go on for some time with other examples, but let it suffice to say that when we complain about the level of regulations on your operations look at the other foot and determine whether you are actually getting exactly what you asked for. In many cases regulations are the response to organizations who tried to take the easy way out rather than what was critical for sustainability of our organizations.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Politics. Half-Truths and the Workplace

Every night and every day between now and November we will be bombarded with political ads from one source or another regarding the upcoming presidential race. Despite non-aligned groups such as Politico and Fact-Finder stating that the premise is wrong, the campaigns continue to run ads with false data. One campaign pollster even openly stated that in releasing campaign ads we don't care if our facts are wrong. There is a campaign poster running currently which shows grumpy coal miners with the caption that we were told to show up for a candidate appearance with out pay or risk being fired. That is not the message that appeared in the main stream media. 

This make me turn to our business world and ask the question what do we do with the facts? When some one makes a complaint against your organization is the tendency to truly investigate the issues or do we look to what makes the organization look good? Do we tell an employee that his job is safe and then lay him or her off three days later?

We constantly as organizations claim our organizational culture requires us to be the employer of choice and that we have 100% employee engagement. Then we turn around and we are less than honest with all parties. We tell the world how great we are and then we understate the job requirements. I have a friend who took a job with the understanding that it was minimal travel and he is now traveling 90% of the time. We tell our employees that we want full engagement but we fail to show the employee that they are a valued part of the organization.

The problem is that these half-truths will inevitably come back to haunt your organization. If you stretch the truth someone is surely at some point going to take you task over it. I am not a lawyer  but from my recruiting days I have heard of candidates who successfully took legal action over half truths.

As a human resource strategist, here is my advice to your organization. Determine what your message is and make sure that message is based on creditable, verifiable facts. Facts which are not tainted to meet an arbitrary goal. A Message that treats everyone involved -- employees, customers, stakeholders, management- with the respect that they deserve. You want to be included in the list of the Good to Great organizations, then you need to place yourselves above the morass of tainted messages. Half-truths have no place in a quality business environment - not in the past, not in the future and certainly not in the future.

It is not a choice of do or don't. The survival of your organization depends on it.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Poilitics, Half-truths and the Workplace

Every night and every day between now and November we will be bombarded with political ads from one source or another regarding the upcoming presidential race. Despite non-aligned groups such as Politico and Fact-Finder stating that the premise is wrong, the campaigns continue to run ads with false data. One campaign pollster even openly stated that in releasing campaign ads we don't care if our facts are wrong. There is a campaign poster running currently which shows grumpy coal miners with the caption that we were told to show up for a candidate appearance with out pay or risk being fired. That is not the message that appeared in the main stream media. 

This make me turn to our business world and ask the question what do we do with the facts? When some one makes a complaint against your organization is the tendency to truly investigate the issues or do we look to what makes the organization look good? Do we tell an employee that his job is safe and then lay him or her off three days later?

We constantly as organizations claim our organizational culture requires us to be the employer of choice and that we have 100% employee engagement. Then we turn around and we are less than honest with all parties. We tell the world how great we are and then we understate the job requirements. I have a friend who took a job with the understanding that it was minimal travel and he is now traveling 90% of the time. We tell our employees that we want full engagement but we fail to show the employee that they are a valued part of the organization.

The problem is that these half-truths will inevitably come back to haunt your organization. If you stretch the truth someone is surely at some point going to take you task over it. I am not a lawyer  but from my recruiting days I have heard of candidates who successfully took legal action over half truths.

As a human resource strategist, here is my advice to your organization. Determine what your message is and make sure that message is based on creditable, verifiable facts. Facts which are not tainted to meet an arbitrary goal. A Message that treats everyone involved -- employees, customers, stakeholders, management- with the respect that they deserve. You want to be included in the list of the Good to Great organizations, then you need to place yourselves above the morass of tainted messages. Half-truths have no place in a quality business environment - not in the past, not in the future and certainly not in the future.

It is not a choice of do or don't. The survival of your organization depends on it.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Fireman, Strategist or Catalyst - What is the HR Role?

As I attend various HR related events and read the posts in social media there seems to be some discussion as to exactly what HR is supposed to be doing. Have said that I can find some common threads in the discussions.

Some of the individuals believe we are there to be the policy cop's. Our responsibility is centered around the task of keeping the organization out of trouble. In doing that we tend to gain the "we have an app for that" mentality. If a problem arises we have the solution or we will create it. Never mind if the solution is aligned with the corporate objectives or the business vision or mission. Management tells you they have a problem and you create the problem solution only to be told that now HR is a roadblock to the successful organization as a whole. You want a clearer picture of what we are suggesting talk to your peers who have been around and ask them what it was like when we were called Personnel.

For several years now I have been telling anyone who asks that I am a HR strategist. We use that nomenclature on our blog and on our LinkedIn profile. But what does that mean? My interpretation was that my role in the equation is to show organization show to align HR with the overall business strategy. That I am working to show the organization that HR has a major role to play within that strategy. Dictionary.com defines strategist as one who is an expert in strategy. It defines strategy as a plan, method or a series of moves to obtain a specific goal or end result. That was what I thought I was doing. I was talking to clients about getting their HR department to be seen as a critical part of the organization. I was showing them how by some relatively small moves they could have their department run as an efficient hub within the organization. True some of the moves required dramatic changes in the way they have always done things. We expected our peers to challenge the status quo, because at its roots the system was not producing the results that HR wanted or that management expected.

Then the other day along comes a business partner who tells me you are not a strategist you are a catalyst. So I had to stop and think about what the difference is between the two. Dictionary.com tells us that a catalyst is something that causes activity between two or more persons or forces without itself being affected or a person or thing that precipitates and event or change.After considering this for a bit I am not sure if I can give him a direct answer to his proposition. Let me talk a bit as to why.

First let me say that plainly the global workplace is not going for too much longer tolerate us being the corporate fireman. The world will not move forward with the obstacles we sometimes put in place. We are not helping our organizations and we are not helping ourselves. If all we do is put put fires day in and day out we have not proven or more important justified our existence. The same duties and functions can be performed by an outsourced entity.

So if we can't be the fireman then we are left with being either a strategist or catalyst. I am not sure the answer lies specifically within or outside the organization. The answer rests rather in the consideration of what our function is or should be.

As we stated above a strategist is one who is an expert in strategy. As HR professionals are we not experts in how to advance our human capital assets? Are we not the best persons within the organizational structure to know and implement strategic initiatives to advance the collaboration and innovation of the organization based on the way we source, recruit and train the talent needed by the organization? We have a vital role to play that no other can perform as proficiently as we can. We understand the dynamics of human interaction and can identify those who best fit within the greater picture.

If we are catalysts rather than strategist then we are given the task of advocating change within our organizations,but with the understanding that we are operating apart from the rest of the organization. I am unclear how you can advocate change within the organization without it affecting your own position Remember one of the tenants of the catalyst above was that we advocate change but we are not affected. I find it difficult to believe that as HR professionals that if we improve our organizations we will in turn be affected by the raised stature of both our immediate position but the whole profession as well.

Could there be an alternative or a merger of sorts.? I would suggest that as HR professionals we are both strategists and catalysts at the same time. We advocate change every day to improve the performance of the organization. We may not always be heard but we do make the attempt. At the same time we are experts in the implementation of plans, methods or a series of moves to obtain a better work environment for the workforce. We are charged with sourcing , recruiting and hiring the right person, for the right job at the right location at the right time.

We want our place at the table where the decisions are made regarding the objectives and initiatives of the organization are made. We are not going to get there without determining what our role is within the organization. So what are you - Fireman, Strategist or Catalyst? What role do you want in your organization and do you have the evidence based documentation to support your decision?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

It's not what you dont know that hurts you, its what you think is so tht isn't

Every morning I get in my inbox an email from the Employment Law Information Network and in the edition from August 6 was a post from Michael Maslanka from Constangy's Dallas office in which he asked the question whether the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause protect gay employees who work for pubic employers. What caught my eye was Michael's final line of the post which is the title of this post.

How many times have you made a decision on a business process or business policy based on less than complete information. Our local newspaper for instance ran a 10 question quiz on the Affordable Care Act. On the answer page they showed the percentage of individuals who got the response correct and in most cases the correct response was identified by less than 25% of the people. Or consider this question -- You have had a candidate apply for position and you find out that the candidate has a disability so you automatically remove him or her from consideration even though they may very well be your most loyal and dependable employee.

We find ourselves in a very complex world today and it is very easy to fall into the trap of making assumptions based on half truths or mistaken information. I fully understand in the rush to achieve a goal we make rush decisions. But the problem is just what Michael suggested. If you get the RSS feeds from the EEOC there are loads of fines levied recently to organizations that thought they knew something and not only were they wrong it came back to hurt them. Consider:

,An $11 million consent decree entered here today in federal court has ended the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) race harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a major transportation company.

a Mokena, Ill.-based towing company, will pay $380,000 to 13 claimants and provide other relief resolving a disability discrimination lawsuit

a major cement and concrete products company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for racial harassment

From both a business perspective and from a personal perspective we need to avoid jumping to judgements unless you are sure you have all the facts. Facts that are based on  evidence based data. Taking the views of some o the media or from some misguided directive from you culture can come back to bite. The bite might very well be worse than the bark.

How are you going to change your decision process to ensure that you are not one of those who is operating from what you think is correct when it is not?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Where or where has innovation gone?

Carefully consider some of the political ads currently running in the media and you would be led to believe that America is going down hill. Part of that is the climate we are in at the current time. Russell Moen of Express Personnel in his presentation "Love them or Leave them" talks about the key to innovation is collaboration. Collaboration indicates the presence of a cross-functional team that brings ideas to the table and looks at all facets of the situation and arrives at a consensus as to the most efficient way to direct the organization in resolving the problems at hand.

I grew up in an era when the badge of honor was being a Rockefeller Moderate who did what collaboration means. Now in both governing circles and in many business organizations we see just the opposite. Dictionary.com tells us that the definition of INNOVATION is the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.That does not mean being so closed minded that we think that there is only one way to introduce new methods of doing things.

Management and elected officials tell us this is the way we do things and if it doesn't fit your picture of the world then go somewhere else. The result is that both scenarios place us in danger of falling off the cliff. We reach stalemates which ends up getting nothing accomplished. Problems go unsolved because no one wants to see both sides of the coin.

If we want to be the next great organization then we need to look at the facts and then take the best of all views on the situation and find that middle road which will allow us to arrive at unique resolutions to the problems facing us. Do not waste organizational crucial time by forming a cross-functional team as window dressing. Do not form a cross-functional team whose ideas are summarily dismissed by top management because that just is not the way we do things round here.

Our economic times have put us in a unique place. We can decide whether we as an organization have a future as real innovators within our industries based on solid consideration of all ideas in the marketplace or we can continue to believe that management is the only one who knows how to move the organization forward and take the road to disaster.

The choice is yours, make it wisely.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Back to the Future or why we forgot what teaching means

Thanks to the ilks of Jeb Bush and Bill Gates the United States has pushed our educational system and governmental entities have pushed the country to evaluate both our students and teachers on the basis of the results of standardized tests. They claim that the testing results are a clear picture of the success of our educational system.

I spent six years of my life in the classroom and having graduated under a system which did not put as much emphasis on testing I can tell you while the intent is well intended it misses a major outcome that we need in today's global workplace.

Consider two views of teaching. The first is the current system where the process of students and therefore the impact of the teaching effort is based on the content of the state standards and accompanying tests. The indirect result is that because there is so much emphasis on meeting the standards teachers are forced to establish their lesson plans around that content. I am not suggesting that there is a problem with setting standards for what should be taught in the classroom. I have a problem when the concentration is the test rather then the content.

Take the second view of teaching. This the view that was the norm up until the push for the standardized tests. My grandfather worked his way up through the business world to the level of CEO without basing that education on the test results. When I was attending school we had the opportunity to take the NYS Regents exam to judge our progress.

Here is my problem with the new world. I hear and read almost every day that companies are having a hard time finding employees who can function at a satisfactory level within the workplace. Why not? Because the direct result of the new system is the lack of critical thinking. The success of our organizations is not dependent on whether you passed some standardized test but rather your ability to think through problems. The ability to think through why the organization is undergoing issues is critical for the success of the economy and the organization.  It is very disturbing when an educator tells me that if he taught Math the way he did when he started teaching 25 years ago he would be forced to fail all his students. This is what happens when we do not take the time to challenge the students to find solutions on their own using easily taught skills. This is what happens when the aim of the system is to meet the content of the test rther then life skills.

In order to ensure that we have a workforce that can meet the challenges of the future, we need to return to the time when the programs were designed to challenge the students to think through problems not by rote response to the issues. Our organizations, our economy, our survival and our innovation demands it. The future demands it if we are to be the powerhouse we claim to be.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Corporate America and the GPS Mentality

As I write this I am on a family vacation to visit friends in Colorado Springs. As I do on most trips I called AAA for a Triptik and loaded the address in the GPS. When last Sunday came around we pulled out of the driveway and told the Magellan to take us there by the shortest route. Well come to find out that both the Triptik and the Magellan took us on the long way to get to our destination and in the process added about 200 miles to the trip by taking the long way to get there.

As I look back at the drive (yes we did drive it from Florida to Colorado) I looked at some of our organizational processes and I wondered how many times have we tried to resolve an HR issue using a GPS mentality?

In this electronic world we live in we try and find a solution to our needs by finding a tool or device that can make out lives easier. So we go out and purchase a GPS to make our lives easier.

When we look at our organizational processes we tend to strive for the same goal. We want to make our business lives easier with all the stress levels that we currently undergo. But like the GPS our route to an easier life is not as easy as we may think. Like my trip routes it is easy to take a route which on the face of it makes our life easier but in reality makes our lives within the organization more complex. We take the easy way out with out regards for the consequences of our actions.

When you look at how you organization operates do you do so with a GPS view or do you look for ways to be innovative in the way you implement your processes?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

We are on a Journey but seem to have lost our way

Within the past week I have had several conversations with HR professional peers with a rather disturbing thread to the conversation. I had one individual tell me that if we treated HR as an individual, they would fail an Emotional Intelligence analysis ( and you think you can use it to judge candidates) I have others tell me that many of our colleagues want to return the era when we were called personnel. Still others suggest that if we continue in the track we are in, the profession will cease to exist.

At the same time other of our peers argue for a seat at the "partner table." I challenge you to define what we have done to earn that seat. Many managers see us not as a partner but an obstacle to the organization. We are not aligned with the business strategy but rather we object to changes in the way the organization operates because that is not the way we do things. We remain stuck in a world that has changed, we are just on a journey which isn't the journey we thought we were on.

If you open your focus and your mind it may not be too late to change your focus. We may not have reached the point of no return and we can still demonstrate to our organizations that we are a vital part of the organization and its future.

So I challenge each and every one of you to become a vital cog in your organization by learning the language of your business. Change your path so that you are no longer a  drain on the organization.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Engagement or Engagement!!!

http://www.linkedin.com/miniprofile?vieweeID=30670&context=anet&view">

There is a story in the news here in Florida today about a lifeguard who left his assigned station to save the life of a man in distress.It reportedly was off his assigned watch area.

In return his employer fired him for leaving his assigned section of the beach. He was followed by several other lifeguards who either were likewise fired or quit in protest. The lifeguard company finally offered to reinstate all of them, but they refused because of the nature of the event.

From a corporate perspective we continually hear about organizations complaining that they can't get their employees engaged within the organization. Could this be why? Does your message encourage employees to get involved or encourage them to stay within their tiny little part of the universe called your organization. Is engagement of importance to your organization?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Why Does HR Not get It?

In the course of my consulting practice I have the opportunity to talk with a number of individuals within the HR  and business space on a daily basis. So when twice in a week I get the same question posed to me, it makes you wake up and think twice about how you answer.

The first time occurred during the facilitation of our two day seminar on "Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma"  when one of the participants remarked that she does not understand why HR people shy away from solutions that will improve the effectiveness of their space within the organization. The second one happened within the groups on LinkedIn when Dr. Ed Holton posted a question with the same title as this post.

Does HR have a problem with getting it? I suppose it depends on who you talk to. However here is my take on the response. Many contributors to the HR space believe that we need to change our message and I would agree.The problem becomes what do we change the message to?

I would suggest that we need to reassess where you want to take your career. If you are happy with being the corporate fireman and spending your days putting out those fires that arise because we are embedded in the stance of being reactive to the environment around us so be it. But at the same time we would suggest that you stop by your local business supply place and purchase a calendar and begin to cross off each day with a large red X. Why? I would suggest that you are counting the days until you don't have a position. This is not because your organization decides to let you go. This is because the position will evolve into another dimension.  dimension in which there will be more demanded of you then you are currently providing your organization.

On the other hand if you want to become a vital part of your organization then you need to change your focus to a proactive stance. You need to change your perspective to one of challenging everything the organization does related to human capital. Become proactive in solving the organizational problems.I just finished reading John Bodreau's Beyond HR in which we suggests that we need to look at HR from a talentship view. while I disagree with some of his points, the basic point is that we need to become more involved in the hiring process from the point of view of delivering metrics which show the benefits of the talent acquisition process.

As Dr. Holton so aptly asks, if accounting, finance, C-Suites and marketing get the message why can't HR. It is a critical point in time that HR has to understand that we can no longer tolerate being the organizational punching bag. We can no longer tolerate being the answer that managers use for why the system does not work.  As HR professionals, many of you who are in Atlanta at the SHRM conference, we need to stand up and say enough is enough.  We get the message. We understand what our new role in the organization is supposed to be. We are not your punching bag, but rather play a vital role in the success of your organization. we are the ones who understand the valuable role our human capital play better than anyone else in the organization. We are the ones who hear and understand what trials and tribulations they are going through. We are the one who know the obstacles the market is putting in front of us when we source out that next best talent.

Why does HR not get it? We do not have a choice but to start getting it. It means the success of both your career and the success of the organizations that  employ us.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Human Resources Defined: The Architect of Work

I continually talk to clients and fellow HR professionals bout how we need to change our perspective on this industry we have chosen. We can't expect to walk a different path when we try to push this is what we do on our organizations This week we received one of the best blogs on this read we have seen recently from the HR Bartender. Today's post is that blog post in its entirety

Human Resources Defined: The Architect of Work

Posted: 03 Jun 2012 03:20 AM PDT

Human resources is a tough profession to define. Whenever people ask me what I do and I say “human resources”, their first response is … oh, you hire people. Which is true, human resources often has responsibility in the recruitment arena. But it’s certainly not the sum and substance of the role. By far.

But then, when I try to explain what HR does, it becomes this long list of things – benefits, compensation, safety, employee relations, etc. etc. People’s eyes begin to glaze over…

So when I have to describe what HR does, I like to say – HR is the architect of work.

Think about it. What does an architect do? They’re responsible for creating functional, safe, aesthetically pleasing, economical structures. And they get their job done by not only designing but communicating their design to clients, builders, and others.

Human resources professionals are responsible for creating work that:

§ People will want to apply for

§ Pays a wage and benefits package companies can afford

§ Offers fulfillment to employees

§ Meets a need within the organization

And just like some buildings change over time well, work changes too. HR is responsible for taking a holistic approach to work and making sure any changes align with the goals of the organization. It reminds me of the funny story about someone I worked with years ago:

He and his wife would go out to dinner every night. And one night they sketched out their dream home on a bar napkin. They took the bar napkin to an architect and said, “This is our dream home, draw us a blue print.” The architect looked at the napkin and asked, “Can I make one suggestion? Put a kitchen in it.”

So years later, they built their dream home and, taking the architect’s suggestion, included a kitchen. They also put a sign at the kitchen entry that said “This kitchen is for resale purposes only.” Ha!

So, there you go. The role of human resources is to be the architect of work. To create worthwhile jobs that people want to fulfill the company’s goals and objectives.

Reprinted from HR Bartender, a friendly place to discuss workplace issues, with permission from Sharlyn Lauby, SPHR, CPLP.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Where Did we go wrong?

If we review recent news items we see all kinds of reported stories that make me wonder how we got here. Consider these examples:

• Volunteer coach and teacher is dismissed from her job. Her crime--she had an athlete who was upset that he was not going to the prom. He was also on the verge of failing English class which meant he would be suspended from the team until he got his average up. The teacher/coach made a deal with him-- she would be his "date" for the prom on the condition that he worked to get his English grade up. They danced one slow dance and spent the rest of the night playing video games.
• Co-worker is upset about something Another worker tries to lend support by putting their hands on the suffering employee's arm or shoulder and ends up being charged with sexual harassment.

I can vividly remember teachers that I had that gave the students hugs when things were going wrong or they had some great success. When I was teaching, it was not uncommon for my students, who lived in the same neighborhood to stop by my home and ask questions on weekends or right after dinner. They were there because they knew I cared about them as persons. I also challenged them in class with real critical thinking exercises, not test based chores.

Let's turn to the corporate side. Managers continually complain they can not find engaged employees. But flip the coin. Management institutes varying procedures and rules which tend to discourage the very act of caring. I fully realize that some can take it to extremes. I would be upset too if a child got into a sexual relationship with a student. I would be upset if a fellow employee began to stalk another employee. But we are not talking about extremes. We are talking about all being part of that global village that we hear of. It requires a population that feels comfortable openly showing that we care for each others health - mentally and physically. If an individual is uncomfortable let them feel willing to say so. But do not shut off the tendency of humans to demonstrate their feelings for others.

We will only come together as humans when we shun the politically correct and feel comfortable enough with our village that we can show compassion for the trials and tribulations for our fellow passengers on this ship we call Earth. We can deal with the rotten apples in the barrel while not turning ourselves off from the world at the same time.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Am I Missing Something Here?

I was watching the morning news this morning and across the bottom of the screen was a running display of the latest news. One such headline stated that the TSA had patted down an 89 year old man in the airport the other day. When you see the rest of the story at the end of this post you will understand the rest of the post more clearly.

 When I was in HS nearly 50 years ago, we were required to take a wide assortment of classes and have involvement within our local community. We totally understood who the players were and what their roles were. On the same broadcast the state of Florid was reporting a dramatic cut in the passage rate on the written part of the state assessment exam. I then hear employers who are telling us that they can't find qualified employees in the US.

I suspect that in the name of fiscal responsibility we have systematically over the years cut the very programs which make us viable parts of the community. Students today no longer get taught civics ( a fact that drove the actor Richard Dreyfus mad), we have watered down the history that is taught in order to meet the demands of right wing activists who dislike the teaching of real history or science and not made up theories of where we came from.

Unless we turn around the curriculum of this country to widen the knowledge of the students that are following us, they will not be able to function in a vital role within this country.

Now the rest of the opening scenario: the 89 year old man who was subjected to the pat down by TSA - Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State of the US.

Was the TSA patting down everyone who went through the airport, or was the education of the TSA agent so lacking in background that he or she did not recognize who this was and therefore probably not a security risk. Considering i would believe that he still holds high security clearance from the government.

What are your thoughts? Are we giving our students the education they need to function in the global workplace?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Am I Missing Something Here?

I was watching the morning news this morning and across the bottom of the screen was a running display of the latest news. One such headline stated that the TSA had patted down an 89 year old man in the airport the other day. When you see the rest of the story at the end of this post you will understand the rest of the post more clearly.

 When I was in HS nearly 50 years ago, we were required to take a wide assortment of classes and have involvement within our local community. We totally understood who the players were and what their roles were. On the same broadcast the state of Florid was reporting a dramatic cut in the passage rate on the written part of the state assessment exam. I then hear employers who are telling us that they can't find qualified employees in the US.

I suspect that in the name of fiscal responsibility we have systematically over the years cut the very programs which make us viable parts of the community. Students today no longer get taught civics ( a fact that drove the actor Richard Dreyfus mad), we have watered down the history that is taught in order to meet the demands of right wing activists who dislike the teaching of real history or science and not made up theories of where we came from.

Unless we turn around the curriculum of this country to widen the knowledge of the students that are following us, they will not be able to function in a vital role within this country.

Now the rest of the opening scenario: the 89 year old man who was subjected to the pat down by TSA - Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State of the US.

Was the TSA patting down everyone who went through the airport, or was the education of the TSA agent so lacking in background that he or she did not recognize who this was and therefore probably not a security risk. Considering i would believe that he still holds high security clearance from the government.

What are your thoughts? Are we giving our students the education they need to function in the global workplace?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Am I Missing Something Here?

I was watching the morning news this morning and across the bottom of the screen was a running display of the latest news. One such headline stated that the TSA had patted down an 89 year old man in the airport the other day. When you see the rest of the story at the end of this post you will understand the rest of the post more clearly.

 When I was in HS nearly 50 years ago, we were required to take a wide assortment of classes and have involvement within our local community. We totally understood who the players were and what their roles were. On the same broadcast the state of Florid was reporting a dramatic cut in the passage rate on the written part of the state assessment exam. I then hear employers who are telling us that they can't find qualified employees in the US.

I suspect that in the name of fiscal responsibility we have systematically over the years cut the very programs which make us viable parts of the community. Students today no longer get taught civics ( a fact that drove the actor Richard Dreyfus mad), we have watered down the history that is taught in order to meet the demands of right wing activists who dislike the teaching of real history or science and not made up theories of where we came from.

Unless we turn around the curriculum of this country to widen the knowledge of the students that are following us, they will not be able to function in a vital role within this country.

Now the rest of the opening scenario: the 89 year old man who was subjected to the pat down by TSA - Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State of the US.

Was the TSA patting down everyone who went through the airport, or was the education of the TSA agent so lacking in background that he or she did not recognize who this was and therefore probably not a security risk. Considering i would believe that he still holds high security clearance from the government.

What are your thoughts? Are we giving our students the education they need to function in the global workplace?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Truth, Justice and Your Organization?

I can just hear some of you now, but in watching TV and reading the news I was hit with several points which made me question the direction our organization's are headed in. We strive to speak the philosophy that we want our employees to have full transparency into our organization. We expect our employees to be engaged in the processes. The we flip the coin and see stories like the following:

1) Local TV station ran a story about customer service. The owner of the business tells the reporter that if a customer complains directly to the company, they get less attention then if they post the same complaint on social media. In the same breath, we as organizations tell us that it is paramount that we cut off the conversation by limiting employee access to social media during work hours.

2) I for the most part shy away from discussing politics but there were several reports of misguided acts by politicians which had direct impact on the society in which we live. But in each case the acts were essentially thrown under the carpet.

3) The reports surfaced this weekend about the actions of the trade office of JP Morgan Chase. The CEO said that the Dodd-Frank legislation  was too restrictive yet they did exactly what caused the 2008 downturn in the first place. It was primarily caught because of the financial reforms put in place because of these types of actions

As leaders of our organizations, the expectation is there that we will function in an ethical manner with our customers, our vendors and just as important or employees In this 21st century it is no longer possible for us to expect that our employees will do what we expect when we tell them one thing and then do just the opposite.

Our organizations rely on our clients to provide the mechanism to keep the organization running. When we tell them "Hey if you broadcast to the world your problems with us, we will give it more weight then if you just call or write about your problems what picture are you delivering?

 We need to remind ourselves that shortly our organizations will be run by a different generation and for the most part the lack of  transparency and ethical behavior will not be tolerated.

So tell me, are you abiding by truth and justice or is your organization operating behind a set of smokey mirrors? Are you telling your human capital and your customers one thing while doing the exact opposite under the nomenclature of getting things done faster, better and cheaper?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Truth, Justice and Your Organization?

I can just hear some of you now, but in watching TV and reading the news I was hit with several points which made me question the direction our organization's are headed in. We strive to speak the philosophy that we want our employees to have full transparency into our organization. We expect our employees to be engaged in the processes. The we flip the coin and see stories like the following:

1) Local TV station ran a story about customer service. The owner of the business tells the reporter that if a customer complains directly to the company, they get less attention then if they post the same complaint on social media. In the same breath, we as organizations tell us that it is paramount that we cut off the conversation by limiting employee access to social media during work hours.

2) I for the most part shy away from discussing politics but there were several reports of misguided acts by politicians which had direct impact on the society in which we live. But in each case the acts were essentially thrown under the carpet.

3) The reports surfaced this weekend about the actions of the trade office of JP Morgan Chase. The CEO said that the Dodd-Frank legislation  was too restrictive yet they did exactly what caused the 2008 downturn in the first place. It was primarily caught because of the financial reforms put in place because of these types of actions

As leaders of our organizations, the expectation is there that we will function in an ethical manner with our customers, our vendors and just as important or employees In this 21st century it is no longer possible for us to expect that our employees will do what we expect when we tell them one thing and then do just the opposite.

Our organizations rely on our clients to provide the mechanism to keep the organization running. When we tell them "Hey if you broadcast to the world your problems with us, we will give it more weight then if you just call or write about your problems what picture are you delivering?

 We need to remind ourselves that shortly our organizations will be run by a different generation and for the most part the lack of  transparency and ethical behavior will not be tolerated.

So tell me, are you abiding by truth and justice or is your organization operating behind a set of smokey mirrors? Are you telling your human capital and your customers one thing while doing the exact opposite under the nomenclature of getting things done faster, better and cheaper?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

What is your Gay Index?

The term Gay Index was coined by Richard Florida in Fast Company severl years ago, but it brings up an ongoing issue I hear in the marketplace. When we are writing policies and procedures regarding discrimination aand harrassment in the workplace we know that we have a group of protected classes that are singled out in thesse policies as having their rights protected in the workplace.

Yesterday the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just made your job a little bit harder. In a case which pitted and employee against the Department of Justice, the EEOC rulled that transgender employees are a covered class under Title VII.

In a landmark ruling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that Title VII, the federal sex discrimination law, protects employees who are discriminated against because they are transgender. In its unprecedented decision, the EEOC concluded that “intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination ‘based on … sex’ and such discrimination … violates Title VII.”

Based on this ruling it would be in the best interests of your organization to review your policies to ensure that you have updated them for the new requirements.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

That's Just the Way We do things here

I was watching the local news herein Tampa Bay the other night and a story came on that made we stop to think about how we do things within the HR arena everyday.

There is a local man who was scheduled to fly to NJ to be with his daughter who was undergoing a medical procedure. The problem is that he has been fighting cancer for a number of years but he went to an airline and purchased a non-refundable ticket for the trip. Then during a conversation with his doctor, he was told he could not only not fly but he had only about two months to live. He went to the airline and explained the situation and offered full medical documentation. The airline's response was if you died we would give you a partial refund, barring that our policy is that the ticket you bought is non-refundable.That's our policy and we will not make any changes.

I am a strong advocate of our policies and procedures having a standard of work, a set number of steps required to complete the process. But I also realize that in between we have migrated to a world which thrive on flexibility. This leaves us with two options within our organizations. One is to be like the airline and state that this is our policy and we are sticking to it. Or we can introduce the policies and procedures as guidelines and allow your organizations and its managers to use some judgment as to whether the organizational stability is really harmed by inserting some common sense to how we deliver those policies and procedures.

Being lock step into this is the way we do it within this organization does not service the organization nor your human capital assets. Within every policy and procedure, there should be room for some creativity in how we utilize them to resolve issues in the workplace.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

That's Just the Way We do things here

I was watching the local news herein Tampa Bay the other night and a story came on that made we stop to think about how we do things within the HR arena everyday.

There is a local man who was scheduled to fly to NJ to be with his daughter who was undergoing a medical procedure. The problem is that he has been fighting cancer for a number of years but he went to an airline and purchased a non-refundable ticket for the trip. Then during a conversation with his doctor, he was told he could not only not fly but he had only about two months to live. He went to the airline and explained the situation and offered full medical documentation. The airline's response was if you died we would give you a partial refund, barring that our policy is that the ticket you bought is non-refundable.That's our policy and we will not make any changes.

I am a strong advocate of our policies and procedures having a standard of work, a set number of steps required to complete the process. But I also realize that in between we have migrated to a world which thrive on flexibility. This leaves us with two options within our organizations. One is to be like the airline and state that this is our policy and we are sticking to it. Or we can introduce the policies and procedures as guidelines and allow your organizations and its managers to use some judgment as to whether the organizational stability is really harmed by inserting some common sense to how we deliver those policies and procedures.

Being lock step into this is the way we do it within this organization does not service the organization nor your human capital assets. Within every policy and procedure, there should be room for some creativity in how we utilize them to resolve issues in the workplace.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

The Global Marketplace changed, but did your organization?

I recently posted a blog entry entitled "open letter to the CEO" and one of the readers took me to task for posting something with a misspelling because I used the term Stakeholder instead of Shareholder.

While we might be talking semantics here, I thin for every organization there is tremendous potential to change the focus from shareholder to stakeholder. It encompasses a greater audience for the success of the organization. But assuming we are talking just semantics only let's look at the definitions of the two terms.

According to Dictionary.com, a shareholder refers to one who holds or owns shares of a company. In essence this means that the individual or organization holds a financial interest in the organization and looks at all decisions from a return on investment perspective. Every decision that is made is from the view of the effect on the bottom line.

According to Dictionary.com again, the stakeholder is a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest in the organization.

So here is where I part ways with the comment writer. The global marketplace has changed. Our success as organizations is now dependent on a rapidly growing resource base for our success. The correct term in the new arena is that of stakeholder. The investment does not have to be in the form of shares of stock. Consider these stakeholders and see how they differ from shareholders:

• Employees
• Vendors
• Customers
• Community
• Your industry
• Your competitors
• Potential talent resources
• Suppliers

Stakeholders look at our organizations to determine what is necessary for the organization to make them more competitive in the marketplace. We do this through our policies, our products, our customer service levels, the way we treat employees and how we treat the community in which we function everyday. The stakeholder has a vested interest in the success of our organization. Unlike a shareholder, if we are not meeting their needs they can easily pick up and abandon our efforts for someone who will meet those needs. This global marketplace we are now in demands transparency with all parties to the operations from the floor person to the executive suite to the customer and vendor. It demands a new focus on what makes all better not just one segment of the equation.

So next time you are reviewing the operation of your enterprise, consider broadening your focus to encompass the entire market rather then just those who have put their money where their mouth is in the form of a monetary investment within your organization. Consider that those individuals who help you make, sell and service your product or service are just as important as the shareholders.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Daniel Bloom SPHR,SSBB,SCRP
Performance Institute and DBAI partner to bring Driving HR 500 seminar to Washington, D.C.

Daniel Bloom & Associates, Inc. has introduced a proprietary course entitled Driving the Human Resource 500: Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma. It is designed to show HR professionals how to utilize continuous process improvement to enhance their human resource processes and explain HR in terms of organizational strategy. The class lasts for two days and has been pre-approved for 13 strategic continuing education by the Human Resource Certification Institute. In addition all successful participants will receive certification as a Six Sigma Yellow Belt.

Performance Institute classes are scheduled for:

June 12-13, 2012 and October 24-25,2012 For more information visit http://ping.fm/Mpinc

We are also bringing the class to the St Petersburg College Corporate Training Center on April 26-27, 2012 in Clearwater FL
More information visit http://ping.fm/3Pvtq

Performance Institute and DBAI partner to bring Driving HR 500 seminar to Washington, D.C.

Daniel Bloom & Associates, Inc. has introduced a proprietary course entitled Driving the Human Resource 500: Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma.  It is designed to show HR professionals how to utilize continuous process improvement to enhance their human resource processes and explain HR in terms of organizational strategy. The class lasts for two days and has been pre-approved for 13  strategic continuing education by the Human Resource Certification Institute. In addition all successful participants will receive certification as a Six Sigma Yellow Belt.

Performance Institute classes are scheduled for:

June 12-13, 2012 and October 24-25,2012  For more information visit  http://www.performanceinstitute.org/HRSixSigma

We are also bringing the class to the St Petersburg College Corporate Training Center on April 26-27, 2012 in Clearwater FL
                More information visit http://spcollege.augusoft.net/index.cfm?method=ClassInfo.ClassInformation&...

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Beware of the Social Media trogan horse

Growing up I heard often that you should be careful what you ask for. Apparently the organizations that thought that asking for social media passwords was a legitamate way to gain information about prospective new employees and whether they fit into the corporate culture are getting more then they bargained for.

Two U.S. Senators have asked the Department of Justice and the EEOC to investigate whether the practice violates both the Stored Computer Records Act and the Computer and Fraud Act. See http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2012/03/articles/publications/senators-a... for more information.

With the breadth of resumes you are receiving in today's market I fully recognize the need to find the best few candidates for your positions, but taking steps to open the pandora's box is not the way to go about it. Stop for a moment and consider how yu wuld feel if the shoes were on the other foot and you were the one being asked for the release of private information.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed