The thrill is gone

Every year my wife and I have a tradition of attending the supposed "final tour" for B.B. King and as usual last night he sang is hit "The Thrill is Gone." In listening to it last night I began, based on some comments from some of my HR peers, to wonder if that is HR's problem. Have the majority of our peers -deep down inside- lost that thrill about the role HR plays within our organizations? Is the change self-inflicted or the response to a changed view of the function by management?

I hear almost everyday that some think we need to return to the days when we were called personnel. Our responsibilities were that of handling the administrative aspects of our human capital needs. as the business world evolved so did the nature of what we do. The problem began when we changed the name from personnel to human resource management. We were neither ready for the change nor asked for it. In our attempts to make the change we began to fall far short of the expectations that management now required from their HR departments. We became the organizational fireman or policeman depending on the circumstance but di not gravitate toward truly managing the human capital assets. this is part of the reason why HR becomes one of the first prts of the organziation to be dismissed when times get tough.

So has the thrill of being the gatekeeper to the human capital assets gone the way of many other things in our lives? I would suggest that the answer is in the negative. The workplace has changed and we need to change with it. We can still find the thrill within our business lives if we follow some simple steps:

1. Become involved in the understanding of the voice of your customers - Talk with both your internal and exterior customers about the skills, attributes and attitudes they expect from the organizational human capital. Change the job descriptions to reflect these requirements.
2. Change your perspective from that of policeman to that of a coach - Help your management to understand the new roles that human capital plays within the work environment. They have a key role in the innovation of your organization.
3. Coach your management to change their direction - Managers can no longer operate from the command and control attitude. They now need to be the human capital coach. Instead of blaming them for the problems that they occur, they need to sit down and help the employee discover what went wrong and why. To help the manager you need to create new training opportunities which will show them how to make the change.
4. Be an active member of the process improvement efforts organization wide - Become visible through out the organization. Let the various facets of the organization see you involved outside of your cubbyhole called HR. Your involvement has to be absent of rapid decisions of what the organization can and can't do. Be open to working with the organization to find new and unique resolution to the occurrence of non-value added activities.

The thrill might be gone in the careers of many HR professionals but with the right view and the right attitude the thrill can be returned. Are you ready to bring the thrill back?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

DBAI announces dates for 23rd Annual CRP Boot Camp

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

You are sitting at your desk and a box arrives from the Worldwide ERC containing the study material for the 2013 Certified Relocation Professional Examination. Your first thought after opening the box is how you are going to find the time to prepare for the examination?  For many of you the answer is I don’t know!  The corporate mobility body of knowledge grows every year and there are many new things you have to master in order to prepare successfully for the examination on May 15, 2013 

Fortunately, there is a better way.  The Daniel Bloom & Associates, Inc. 3- day Boot Camp for the CRP 2013 will help you identify those strategies that will enable you to successfully pass the examination.

Attended by over 1000 of your fellow mobility professionals since 1991, representing all the various segments of the industry, the Boot Camp has proven to be successful in their preparation for the exam.

The 23rd Annual CRP Boot Camp is your direct route to:

Ø  Gaining a better understanding the entire corporate mobility industry                         

Ø  Identifying the critical areas covered by the exam

Ø  Identifying successful testing strategies for answering the examination questions

Ø  Increasing your service capabilities delivered to your clients by understanding their needs

Ø  Receiving support information to reinforce the examination information

Ø  Gaining real life examples of the material implementation

Ø  Concentrated review without interruption for the examination

Ø  Network with other professionals who are also preparing for the examination.

The workshop materials include a 355+ page outline version of the current CRP material updated for 2013, a nearly 800 question sample test like exam to acquaint you with the style of questions that could be asked on exam day, admission to the 3-day class, a copy of the class powerpoint presentation and a second 125 question exam based on the 2013 material.

Developed by Daniel Bloom & Associates, Inc.Human Capital Strategists, the Boot Camp will be facilitated by Daniel Bloom the CEO of Daniel Bloom & Associates who was one of the first mobility professionals to receive the designation in 1990 and is the author of Just Get Me There: A Journey through Corporate Relocation." 

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

The Runner Up: The 2nd Most read post of 2012

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

The winner is : The most viewed Blog post of 2012

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

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