Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 04, 2012
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
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.
Monday, September 10, 2012
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
Monday, September 03, 2012
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.
Friday, August 31, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
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?
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
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?
Saturday, August 04, 2012
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.
Friday, July 20, 2012
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.
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?
Sunday, July 08, 2012
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.
Friday, July 06, 2012
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?
Monday, June 25, 2012
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.
Monday, June 04, 2012
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.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
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.
Tuesday, May 15, 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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
