Is It Helpful or Harmful to Rank Your Workers?

By Deanna Hartley on 08-20-2010

A recent study challenges the commonly held notion that ranking employees - essentially comparing their performance to that of their peers - works well as a motivational tool and suggests that it can actually backfire on managers.

It's oftentimes thought that rankings can enable a workforce to become more competitive, causing high performers to work harder to maintain their rankings and those with lower rankings to put in the extra effort to try to catch up with their colleagues.

What can end up happening, however, is quite the opposite, according to the study - titled "Rankings and Social Tournaments: Evidence from a Field Experiment" and conducted by Iwan Barankay, a management professor at Wharton.

The research finds that rankings could in fact result in high performers becoming complacent about their work and those with less-than-stellar ranks becoming discouraged and essentially giving up.

It does seem obvious to me that in certain cases, these type of benchmarking tools have the potential to lower morale, cause resentment and, in the worst case, prompt some to sabotage their co-workers' efforts - none of which is helpful to an organization's bottom line.

Then again, if employees were blissfully unaware of how their work compares with others, there may not be as much of an incentive to put in the blood, sweat and tears.

The solution seems to lie in one of Barankay's quotes in a Knowledge@Wharton article: "A good employer knows its employees very well and should have a good idea how they will respond to the prospect of being ranked ... If, as the employer, you think a worker will respond positively to a ranking and feel inspired to work harder, then by all means do it. But it's imperative to think about it on an individual level." (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2567)

So what do you think? Does ranking do more harm than good in your organization? Share your thoughts with us.

Public Displays of Rejection

By Agatha Gilmore on 08-12-2010

Since the onset of the recession, it seems employee frustration has mushroomed. More work, longer hours, demoralized co-workers and general feelings of tension -- perhaps fear mixed with depression -- have led many to start resenting their workplaces. That's not surprising. Nor are they necessarily to blame.

But as some are pushed to their breaking points, it seems there's a movement afoot that makes them feel freer to express their frustration publicly. Take, for example, the case of Steven Slater, a former JetBlue flight attendant who decided to quit his job in a very unusual manner. According to reports, Slater, after a heated argument with a passenger upon landing, unleashed a profanity-laden tirade through the plane's PR system, grabbed his bags -- and a beer or two from the drink station -- opened the emergency exit and slid down the inflatable chute. He was later arrested (due to FAA regulations), but recently posted bail.

Then there was the case of the dry-erase board quitter, a young woman who supposedly resigned from her job by e-mailing her entire office a series of photographs of herself holding up dry-erase boards with inflammatory messages on them. Though the debacle was later revealed to be a hoax, the idea is the same: Employees are so frustrated that they are quitting their jobs in blazes of angry, highly public rejection. And, perhaps more frightening, they are being celebrated for it.

Yes, it's reasonable that workers under strain would be angry and upset, but at what point does politeness and common decency go out the window? And what are the repercussions not only for the business itself -- from workplace morale to organizational reputation to talent management concerns -- but also for society as a whole?

Hiring Managers Now More Ink-Friendly

By Kellye Whitney on 08-05-2010

For the past year or so, Great Recession and its resulting effects notwithstanding, I've noticed the tide seems to be turning sharply in favor of the employee.

A recent MSNBC.com article, "Body Art Seen as Less of a Workplace Barrier," echoes my observations. Apparently offices are more open to employment candidates bearing tattoos.

The article states, "According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, more than 45 million Americans have at least one tattoo. The younger you look, the more ink you'll find."

Since younger Americans are a hot favorite for talent-hungry organizations, it only makes sense to be more accepting. Of course, whether or not said candidates are vying for customer-facing positions in certain more conservative industries is still an important consideration, but the article states, "Workers with visible smaller, [discreet], non-offensive tattoos are more likely to be accepted by business."

To ward off tattoo-related ills, if organizations decide they are open to body art, it's important to have an enforceable appearance policy.

"If an employer has a policy based in good sound business reasons as to why tattoos can or cannot be visible, and they're consistent with the application of that policy, then it's quickly going to become a nonissue," the article states.

Most interesting about this article was its association between an evolution of society - leading to acceptance of things that were once viewed as shocking - and a greater approval of tattoos.

A source said, "You're always going to have a small group of people, no matter what, who are going to hate tattooing or hate people in shorts or hate people with blond hair or short hair or long hair. That's inevitable. I don't think a business should restrict themselves. … The quality of your business is what sells itself."

Implicit in these comments, the general loosening of censorship and increase of acceptance says great things for a similar acceptance of diversity in the workplace, and that's definitely good for business.

Bullying Bosses Beware

By Kellye Whitney on 07-21-2010

We've all had one. The boss you know gives out more tricks than treats on Halloween to the neighborhood kids, because he or she does the same thing on the job.

They may scream, curse, throw things or humiliate people in front of large groups, and all of this loveliness is done often, deliberately and with great pleasure. But, according to a Time article, "Workplace Bullying: New York Bill Targets Abusive Bosses" legislation to rein in this kind of workplace terrorism may be closer than we think.

According to the article, "Workers' rights advocates have been campaigning for years to get states to enact laws against workplace bullying, and in May they scored their biggest victory. The New York state senate passed a bill that would let workers sue for physical, psychological or economic harm due to abusive treatment on the job. If New York's Healthy Workplace Bill becomes law, workers who can show that they were subjected to hostile conduct - including verbal abuse, threats or work sabotage - could be awarded lost wages, medical expenses, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages."

Of course, many employers are opposing the bill, arguing it could lead to frivolous lawsuits and potentially penalize them "for nothing more than running a tight ship and expecting a lot from their workers" because that's exactly what bullying is about - not - but the law has been structured to punish only the most offensive and deliberate abuse, wrongful conduct done with malice, essentially, and in most cases the behavior has to be repeated.

The New York state assembly is expected to consider the bill in 2011, and some 16 other states are evaluating similar bills.

We'll see what happens, but I have a suggestion for a new policy talent managers can implement if the bullying legislation passes: the use of squirt guns in the office.
Boss acting out, misbehaving or otherwise being a nuisance? Pretend he's your wayward cat and - pow! - hit him with a nice icy cold stream of water right in the puss.

Twitter Is Kind of Dangerous

By Kellye Whitney on 07-08-2010

If you're looking for a reason not to tweet, just think about how much you like to get paid. For your job, I mean.

Take former CNN editor Octavia Nasr, for instance. Nasr, who was responsible for Middle Eastern coverage, recently posted a note on Twitter expressing admiration for a late Lebanese cleric considered an inspiration for the Hezbollah militant movement and was let go from her job.

According to an article on Forbes.com "Nasr later apologized for her tweet, but CNN's senior vice president for international newsgathering, Parisa Khosravi, said that Nasr's credibility had been compromised."

In the tweet, Nasr said she was sad to hear of Fadlallah's death. She called him "one of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot."

She later said in a blog that she was referring to Fadlallah's attitude toward women's rights. Forbes.com said, "The cleric had issued edicts banning so-called 'honor killing' of women and giving women the right to hit their husbands if attacked first.
"She wrote that Fadlallah was 'revered across borders yet designated a terrorist. Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It's something I deeply regret.'"

Nasr had a 20-year career with CNN, and in 140 characters it was gone. There are a few lessons here. One, tweet cautiously. Your employer is watching. And two, maybe Twitter has a few kinks. Or maybe tweeting is an art, one not fully matured, as this is not the only case of job death by Twitter that has crossed my desk recently.

Twitter's like the employee watchdog. People think they're being glib and clever, and some are, but for others? Like those pesky people who write paychecks? You're being disloyal at worst and plain old silly at best.

12 Things Every Boss Should Know

By Kellye Whitney on 06-25-2010

I ran across an article titled "12 Things We'd Tell Our Bosses if We Could," which highlights the things employees would tell their supervisors if they could tell them anything at all. Here are my responses, in Kellye-ized employee speak.

1. "Give me the tools I need to do a good job." Today would be great. Yesterday would have been phenomenal. But definitely sometime before I quit or have a nervous breakdown induced by a lack of time, materials, and information and a plethora of aggravation, unruly deadlines, and stink-eye looks from you. Thanks!

2. "Admit it when you make a mistake." It shows me you realize you're human and know that perfection doesn't exist, and it demonstrates that I should respect you and not roll my eyes excessively - when you're not looking, of course - at your ridiculous posturing.

3. "Don't treat me like a cog on a wheel." Even if I am, I'm still me, so speak to me personally. Don't lump me in with anyone else even if we're all on the same team. Like Marilyn Monroe said, "We are all of us stars, and we deserve to twinkle."

4. "Ask for my opinion from time to time." You might learn something, and I might be more inclined to listen when you give me yours without me asking for it.

5. "I truly need frequent feedback." End-of-the-year reviews are not the time to tell me about a mistake I've been making since January. I think you're an idiot to chastise me for something we could have fixed if you bothered to instruct me more often.

6. "Don't leave me hanging out to dry." Also known as don't throw me under the bus when things go wrong. Earn my loyalty by taking a bullet once in a while.

7. "I can't hear you when you shout." Because I'm not listening. I'm silently laughing at how ridiculous you look and because you think this display is going to produce something in me other than jokes at your expense.

8. "Don't make me work with idiots." And they are everywhere! You see them, too. You know they're there. So rescue me and the rest of the team from people's stupidity and save us all some time, annoyance and likely money.

9. "Have a clear agenda." Be sure of what you want before you tell me you want something. If you don't know what it is and I do the wrong thing and then have to redo it, I'm going to be pissed at you. Like Denzel said in "Training Day," "Explain it to me like I'm a 2-year-old." OK, not really, but clear communication is much appreciated.

10. "Don't lie about deadlines." What the hell's the point of that? Do you like pissed-off, stressed-out, resentful employees and crappy work products?

11. "Be predictable." If you behave erratically, I will start leaving pamphlets for antidepressants and nearby shrinks in your mailbox and tell everyone that I "saw" them there.

12. "Mentor me." Teach me stuff. It's for your benefit as well as mine, and it makes me think you care, even if you don't.

Oh, and one thing I'd tell employees: Don't talk crap about your boss (Gen. McChrystal). Especially to reporters. Especially when your boss is the president (Obama). Dummy.

Face It: There Is No Privacy on the Internet

By Kellye Whitney on 06-16-2010

Forget incriminating Facebook pictures or dodgy little blog posts that talent managers may view when recruiting potential talent. According to a recent article on CNNmoney.com, "Employers May Do Creepy Web Searches About You," (http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/14/news/economy/employers_creepy_web_searches.fortune/) now there's something called the deep Internet or the deep Web - cue spooky music - that managers can use to uncover information. According to the article, "Researchers estimate it's more than 500 times the size of the everyday Internet you can see with an ordinary search engine."

The article gave one example of an interviewer mentioning a science fiction author he and the interviewee were both fond of. The job seeker later realized that information could only be found by accessing his Amazon wish list. On the one hand, cool, you both have something in common with which to engage in conversation. On the other hand, what else do talent managers have access to and where does one draw the line?

I personally don't believe anyone has any privacy, period. Between cell phones and the Internet, deep or otherwise, everything you want and don't want to know about anyone is likely out there in some form. According to the article, deep Web searches may reveal what political campaign you've given money to, whether your house is in foreclosure and if you've ever declared bankruptcy, filed an application for a patent or been investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. And forget about hiding mean-spirited work-related tweets and blog posts - those come up first. Even activity in virtual worlds is fair game.

Aside from the ethical concerns, the author does caution hiring managers to have a word with legal counsel before executing one of these deep searches, just in case you find out something you shouldn't ask about during an interview.
"For instance, hiring managers are prohibited by law from asking if an applicant has ever had cancer," the article reports.

But the piece does make a good point: If a deep Web search turns up membership in a cancer survivors' support group, can the recruiter remove that information from objective consideration of this person for a position?

I mean, really, whose business is it what books you want to purchase on Amazon? More importantly, what's next as fodder for employment criteria - checking bank account balances?

It's creepy. Here to stay - unless you patronize a service to control your digital information - but very, very creepy.

Have you had issues with deep Web searches? Share your thoughts on the Talent Management Network.

Does the Thought of You Render Your Employees Unproductive?

By Deanna Hartley on 06-09-2010

It may sound funny at first, but it turns out that's a valid question managers ought to be asking themselves.

Say, hypothetically, that your subordinates view your personality as controlling. If, in the midst of performing valuable work, they were subliminally subjected to your name, recent research shows they would unconsciously begin to perform the task poorly. This research was outlined in a recent article in the Harvard Business Review: http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/05/why-controlling-bosses-have-un.html.

So what are managers to make of this finding that appears somewhat mystifying on the surface? Well, the author points out that the takeaway in this case is for managers to realize how much employees value their freedom and autonomy.

Do you take into consideration whether your management style aligns with your direct reports' need for autonomy? If not, you may be inadvertently jeopardizing their productivity - and your bottom line!

A Key Human Motivator

By Deanna Hartley on 06-04-2010

I recently attended a conference in which noted author Dan Pink spoke about the science of human motivation.

Even though money, praise, recognition, etc., certainly serve as ways to motivate employees, Pink argues that there are three key elements for effective motivation for more highly creative, conceptual tasks: autonomy, mastery and purpose.

I want to spend a moment talking about the first in greater detail: autonomy over task (what people do), time (when they do it), team (who they do it with) and technique (how they do it).

A great example of this would be FedEx Day, which is a program that Atlassian - an Australian company that makes software development and collaboration tools - implements one day a week. Similar to Google's 20 percent time concept, managers at Atlassian allow employees to work on an "out of the ordinary" project that would benefit the company in the long run. The idea is to create an unconventional outlet for employees to realize their creative potential with out-of-the-box thinking.

Now, I suppose it's hard to say with certainty whether or not autonomy - at varying levels - could work in all or even a majority of companies, but it might be worth pondering. What do you think?

Are You Cheating on Your Employees?

By Kellye Whitney on 05-28-2010

And we're not talking cash here, people. We're talking emotional tax, big time. Case in point, the Forbes article I read this week titled "Is Your Boss Cheating On You?"

As if being an effective talent manager wasn't hard enough with limited resources and those pesky generational issues that just won't die, now one must worry about emotional cheating.

As if this isn't enough pressure, also this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that more workers are starting to quit their jobs. Think there's a connection? The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the number of employees leaving voluntarily around 2.7 million per month, compared to 1.87 million in March and 1.72 million in October 2008, during what I tongue-in-cheek refer to as "the bad time." Those millions would be the high performers with lots of options that most organizations want to keep, by the way.

Apparently, there are similarities between a marriage or a long-term couple and an employee and a manager. If one of these star employees feels as though the psychological contract between boss and worker has been violated, game over.

Emotional cheating in the workplace is all about subterfuge and the power dynamic. No sneaky, underhand tactics allowed, managers. One must be transparent and above board ethically at all times, or else - poof! Bye-bye, uber-productive high-potential talent, and hello wretched, back-biting, innovation-deficient culture.

Further, psychological contracts can differ depending on the organizational culture. According to the article, it may not be a case of ill treatment by the boss, but rather he or she does not pay employees what they think they deserve, or worse.

"Workers expect if they follow the rules, decisions will be made in an unbiased, transparent fashion," the Forbes article said. "A boss who strays is generally unfair and unavailable, engages in favoritism or nepotism or deliberately misleads or withholds information."

Bad boss! Make sure this is not you.

How to Handle a Millennial Interview

By Kellye Whitney on 05-21-2010

Our readers can't seem to get enough of generation-related information, so when I ran across the following article, 7 Questions You Wouldn't Expect During a Millennial Interview (http://www.ere.net/2010/05/18/7-questions-you-wouldn%e2%80%99t-expect-during-a-millennial-interview/), I thought, here's some info they can really use. Of course, I put my Gen X, perhaps old-school spin on the responses a recruiter might give if asked the following questions during an interview.

If I don't like my boss, how can I get that changed?

They wrote: "Millennials have internalized the behavior modeled by their parents. It is their first nature to expect the terms of conditions to be modified to suit their needs."

I say: Hide your feelings, request a transfer or get a new job.

How many hours per day will I be expected to work?

They wrote: "Yes, millennials really are asking how much time they will need to put in. Working remotely with clear guidelines about what millennials need to accomplish and deliver can be a win-win for the employee and the company."

I say: Pretty much the same number as everyone else. Unless you wanted, I don't know, to distinguish yourself in some way.

Do you allow the use of Facebook?

They wrote: "Millennials do not see a clear division between work and leisure. It all blends together as they multi-task down their to-do list. Checking in on Facebook seems as natural to them as a baby boomer checking voicemail. Many millennials now come 'pre-wired'; their phones can now access any site any time they want."

I say: Not really, no. But I suppose the real answer is, am I going to monitor you or stand behind your cubicle to enforce the rule?

If I don't like my pay, who do I talk to about fixing that?

They wrote: "This comment reflects the intense focus on making sure millennial children are treated with dignity and respect and that their self-esteem is a top priority."

I say: Your manager, but don't be surprised if he looks at you like you're an alien and checks the file to see that, oh, yes, you waited a whole five weeks on the job before asking for a raise.

If we do reading for our job, can we do it at the gym during work hours?

They wrote: "Multi-tasking is also a cornerstone of the millennial experience. Doing multiple things at the same time - time stacking, as it were - is good time management."

I say: That depends. Are you on your lunch break?

Who will be my mentor and coach while I'm learning the new job?

They wrote: Millennials are accustomed to a lot of attention. They expect a plan from an authority figure outlining how they will become proficient in new tasks or skills.

I say: Great question. I have three suggestions.

Gen X sarcasm aside, according to the article, "Making work fun is possible, but requires a new paradigm for employers." So, note, "Millennials are not deliberately disrespecting the relationship between employer and employee. They just don't conceive of work the way seasoned recruiters or hiring managers do … step outside the traditional frame of reference in order to find the employees who could be future leaders. … Refusing to interview candidates whose resumes include their favorite yoga or music will quickly narrow down the pool of candidates."

Thank goodness, hey? For a second I thought someone had dropped me headfirst into an alternate universe filled with brats. LOL

Talent Management Converges on a Solution

By Cecile Alper-Leroux on 05-14-2010

It's official. Every vendor in the HR space offers integrated talent management solutions. But what does that mean? And how do you know when you're getting a truly integrated solution?

Believe it or not, even the highly trained talent leader may have trouble differentiating between myriad offerings and messages. Although they all sound the same, the distinction has to do with that tricky - and frequently litigious - term "integration."

By definition, integration means bringing together different parts to create a whole. Frankenstein was integrated, and depending on your personal views, with sometimes questionable outcomes. I am not saying all integrated talent management vendors offer Frankenstein solutions, but many do, so I want to highlight the importance of understanding what you are getting from your integrated solution.

Talent management integration comes in many forms. First, there is the classic integration of separately acquired solutions where each has different data models and platforms with various levels of user interface integration. Next, there is the integration of new applications via organic development based on a change of strategy or market developments. And, finally, there is a new kind of integration that HR technology experts Bill Kutik and Naomi Bloom refer to as convergence.

This latter form refers to a new level of unification between core HR functions and talent management applications that share a single person/resource system of record. The key here is that the system of record cannot simply be added on to an existing talent solution. Both Josh Bersin of Bersin & Associates and Lisa Rowan at IDC have stated that a truly unified talent management solution is the position every vendor - from niche to ERP - is racing to reach.

So what does this truly converged solution look like? It is one in which not only the competency architecture is shared and applied in all talent processes, but one in which competency models can quickly help define rich and meaningful jobs, positions and, by extension, requisitions, compensation, succession and development plans.

The truly converged solution is a unified system where the same organizational and reporting structures drive processes, approvals and payroll. It also is a system that supports mature and broad talent processes. It would allow, for example, an engineering firm to implement a development program where internal and contract resources are within a critical talent pool and are prepared and developed for a future project based on specific behaviors linked to project success. The development program results then would automatically update the employee's compensation and talent profile based on these newly acquired skills.

Such convergence, or unified human capital management, can only be achieved when a solution is conceived - from the beginning - as a single whole solution that exists to consistently support talent management processes throughout an organization. This converged system would provide the single source of employee information, regardless of the complexity of an organization's processes. Without convergence, for example, there would be no way to complete a pay-for-performance process that allows new schoolteachers to receive weekly performance observations that identify recommendations for ongoing development and drive workshop pay for those development activities. Here, one source of talent data clearly enables dual, relevant processes.

Cecile Alper-Leroux is director of global HCM product strategy for Lawson Software.

Mergers and Acquisitions

By Kellye Whitney on 04-30-2010

There have been a lot of mergers in the past six months. Authoria and PeopleClick, ACS and Xerox, Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt, to name a few - and just last week Novations merged with Global Lead. The merger, which created a new entity called Global Novations, seems to be amicable, just two friendly competitors teaming up in order to leverage each other's strengths.

Mike Hyter, president and managing partner for Global Novations, said there's very little client overlap between the two companies. As the leader for Novations, his client relationships had increasingly expanded beyond diversity work toward a focus on the talent optimization side of the business, and Global Lead's expertise in C-suite consulting was particularly attractive.

Global Novations' products and services will target a broad audience: leaders with direct reports, employee populations at large that need development at various levels and client marketplaces interested in growing business in underserved or new markets on a global scale.

Then, as though to tickle my conceptual nose for news, Hyter said the generational dynamic in the workforce has created some interesting discussions in corporations around the world with regard to diversity and inclusion, pushing the dialogue beyond race and gender. "We want to be seen as an organization that helps companies enhance their leadership skills, their employee populations' productivity and their market reach because Global Novations exists," he explained.

Oris Stuart, CEO and managing partner of Global Novations, said the focus on talent acquisition and development represents an evolution in the practice of diversity and inclusion in corporate America and other realms, such as government sectors.

"One of the critical places where diversity and the business align is around talent," Stuart said. "It's making sure the organization attracts the best and the brightest, who are increasingly coming from a range of communities and backgrounds."

Stuart said he doesn't remember who approached who first, but once the dialogue began the conversation flowed happily, which is unusual in this time of buyouts and takeovers.

It will be interesting to watch what happens as the new company works to engage leaders in the practice of diversity and, as Stuart said, to ensure they have "the requisite skills to practice diversity in one-on-one and team relationships in executing their business."

Brainy, Young and Controversial

By Kellye Whitney on 04-16-2010

I've noticed a trend in recent media coverage: comments in some form or fashion on group thinking, and seldom in a positive light.

Sometimes the messages are quite subtle, but I think more folks are ready to shake things up. Okay, that might be overstating things; folks may want to shake things up a little bit. Whether it's a little or a lot, I'm all for it. Baby steps are better than no steps, or worse, the baby wobbling there pitifully before falling backward to land hard on its butt.

Consider the situation with Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his intention to resign his Supreme Court post earlier this month. According to the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15908197), President Barack Obama is expected to nominate a successor within weeks.

Aside from the obvious political jockeying between Democrats and Republicans, the necessity for Senate approvals and the like, the piece discusses how the nomination affords President Obama an opportunity to shape American society long after he's gone - hence the probability he will nominate someone brainy, young and controversial (BYC).

Not discounting the critical value experience can have in the workplace - I doubt any would debate the importance of effective succession planning and knowledge transfer from the old guard to the new - but the average organization in corporate America, or any sector really, could benefit from a bit of the BYC.

Shaking things up, diversifying project team makeup, considering formally untried or even unheard of processes and ideas - even if only in a pilot phase - can bring immeasurable benefits. Innovation and creativity will be one of the bellwethers for success in the future, whether that's in the next three to five years or the next 100. As organizations increasingly globalize their operations and product offerings, competition will require leaders to think outside the box, and the BYC can only help that goal.

We Need 'Glocal' Leaders

By Kellye Whitney on 04-09-2010

I'll probably burn in hell amid the flames from outraged George Clooney fans who read this, but I've always thought he was kind of overrated as an actor. Case in point, my copy of "Up in the Air" arrived yesterday from Netflix, and I watched for about 20 minutes before I shut it off and let Pedro Almodovar's "Volver" - a fabulous film - watch me while I dozed.

I did I watch "Up in the Air" long enough to hear Anna Kendrick of "Twilight" fame use the word "glocal" as she very happily tore George's poor character's life apart. So, when I ran into the word again in a recent Economist business column (http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15859723), I read further.
"In 'Up In The Air,' glocal is used to embody unthinking, top-down standardisation, neglecting the human interaction and understanding that are needed to be effective at the local level," the column stated.
The piece went on to discuss the importance of cultural intelligence a la management guru David Livermore and his new book Leading with Cultural Intelligence. Not having read the book, Livermore's claim - that today's organizations must be glocal in its original sense because "there's really no such thing as a uniform global culture" - makes sense. "This message, he says, applies not just to marketing but to recruiting and managing teams of workers in different parts of the world," according to the column.
Further, Livermore's argument - "that managing effectively across multiple cultures is one of the toughest tasks facing multinational companies, not least American ones that are increasingly relying on emerging economies for their workers and future sales growth" - rings as true and clear as a bell in light of rapidly changing customer demographics and the increasing diversity of the workplace and the business marketplace.
As does the guru's belief that firms need to prioritize leadership development of cultural intelligence - the "capability to function effectively across national, ethnic and organisational cultures" - much like some have embraced the need for managers to have emotional intelligence.

I'll likely force myself to finish the movie "Up in the Air" if only to see what all the fuss was about, but in the meantime at least the word "glocal" has new resonance for me.

Foraging for Talent

By Mike Prokopeak on 04-08-2010

Talent managers might be able to learn something from animals.

Author and techno-guru Seth Godin wrote a blog post (http://sethgodin.typepad.com) today about Levy flight, a mathematical concept used to plot seemingly random movements in nature.

He writes: "An animal that forages will hang out in a small area, looking for nuts or berries, then will realize it has used up all the likely sources in this spot. It will then head off in a random direction, walk many paces, and start foraging again."

Godin makes the connection to consumer behavior. You find a Web site or a restaurant, poke around, maybe come back a few times if there's something you like, then move on to the next thing.

Taking it a step further, you can make the connection to employees in their organization. Staying at one company for a whole career has long been a thing of the past. It's too much to think that employees will join a company and continue to forage for value in the same place for years, if not decades. We've accepted this, confidently saying that today's workers simply think differently about their jobs than their predecessors.

But maybe organizations just aren't giving them enough sustenance or adding new value to get them to stick around. Here's two quick implications:

1) Retention: Boost retention by finding what employees value and regularly replenish it. This means compensation and benefits to meet employee's physical needs, but also sustenance for their mental and emotional hungers, development, growth, work aligned to their values and new and exciting challenges.

2) Recruitment: Sniff around your competitors to see what their employees are foraging for. This serves a dual purpose. One, you might find your next superstar who just happened to look up to see what's over in the next patch of woods. Two, you might just come away with some fruits and berries for your own employees.

Animals' movements aren't random and neither are the moves made by your employees. You just need to find the pattern that lies underneath them.

What About the Employed?

By Kellye Whitney on 03-25-2010

I've read more than one article in recent months discussing the fact that those who are unemployed aren't the only ones who have it rough.

It's a classic case of money can't buy happiness. Some may have a salary, but they're likely doing more work - which equates to less pay - and are under a considerable amount of stress and anxiety, worrying not only over how they'll stretch more work out of the same number of hours in a day, but what and who exactly are they working for.

A March 24 press release titled "What About the Employed?" threw the topic into sharp relief when it referred to the employed as remnant people, the substantial portion of the U.S. population that is overworked and undervalued.

The release essentially said concern for the unemployed is understandable as they face the most challenging job market in recent memory with few prospects for a hiring surge any time soon. But leadership expert and ethicist Dr. Paul Gorrell said the remnant employees, who watched their friends and colleagues pack up their desks and leave their organizations, "have faced huge change as companies created new org charts, assigned them to new bosses and introduced them to new team members. The smaller workforce was ill-prepared for its increased levels of responsibility and the increased amount of work. These employees have far less help but an increased amount of work to be done."

So people may be rightfully thrilled to have a job, but their circumstances may be depressing thanks to anxiety over how they may survive the economy as "they will have less opportunity to move up within the organization's ranks. Their managers have twice as many people to supervise so they provide them less feedback and support. On top of all this, their wages continue to be stagnant (or in some instances reduced), failing to provide additional rewards for additional work responsibilities."

Then, perhaps naturally, the release shifted to a solution based on engagement and reiterated some familiar themes about making sure employees love what they do, feel rewarded, get social reinforcement from their managers and have a sense that there is a future for them in the organization.

All of which is far easier said than done, as the talent manager knows all too well. But Gorrell said companies can benefit from the following four key principles:

1. Demonstrate they are compassionate toward the needs of their people. This means moving beyond "messaging" and the surveys toward leaders making deeper connections with their people and being willing to be empathetic and reinforce employee value.

2. Help individuals who have expanded job responsibilities through training and coaching. Cuts to training and development budgets during the downturn when people have increased responsibilities can create ineffective performance, particularly in leaders.

3. Expand communication. Use strategic communication to inform and involve people so they know "someone they trust is steering the ship."

4. Identify ways to reward people who are doing heavy lifting. Key individuals who step up in heroic ways need to be recognized and rewarded.

"When this economy turns around, employees will remember the way their organizations handled their situation and respond with long-term commitment or the next best opportunity that is presented to them," Gorrell said in the release.

Man. It's tough out there for everyone: the unemployed, the employed and especially the talent manager who has to juggle it all.

What Does the HIRE Act Mean for Your Company?

By Kellye Whitney on 03-18-2010

Talent leaders will be interested to know that today President Barack Obama signed a jobs bill, the HIRE Act, that gives organizations a tax break if they hire the unemployed.

According to an article from the Associated Press
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124301924), "The bill contains about $18 billion in tax breaks and a $20 billion infusion of cash into highway and transit programs. Among other things, it exempts businesses that hire people who have been unemployed for at least 60 days from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and gives employers an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year. Taxpayers will have to reimburse Social Security for the lost revenue."

It seems like a step in the right direction to curb the nation's jobless rate, which hovered just under 10 percent in February, but there is skepticism that the legislation will actually have a strong impact - especially since taxpayers are expected to pick up the slack - and that continued expenditures will make the country's deficit worries worse.
"When are we going to stop spending money around here as if there's no tomorrow?" said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., in the article. "Because pretty soon there's going to be no tomorrow for our children as we add this debt to their backs."

Bill sponsor Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said this is the first piece of legislation that will be put forward in relation to jobs. "If we don't create jobs, the economy will not move forward," Schumer said in the article.

I'm no politico by any means, but I have observed that the government has been spending some serious bucks lately. Yet that old adage, sometimes you have to spend money to make money, holds some weight here, I think.

I have two queries before I slam the administration for trying to correct an eight-year - or longer - legacy of wrong moves.

One, wouldn't someone, or some check and balance, stop the president if he was spending outrageously? One must not forget the fact that Congress took a vote, here. And two, I know this money didn't just appear in the government coffers recently, so why haven't we spent any of it on bills like this before now?

What do you think? Share your thoughts on the Talent Management Network.

The Corey Haim Talent Lesson

By Kellye Whitney on 03-11-2010

Actor Corey Haim died Wednesday at age 38.

If you're not familiar with Haim, he was huge in the '80s, thanks to classic movies like "The Lost Boys" and "Lucas." More recently, he gained notoriety in the reality TV genre with his old-school partner in film, friend and peer Corey Feldman, in the A&E show "The Two Coreys."

Haim was a hot young talent when he first came on the scene and quickly became a heartthrob, but as is too often the case with bright, very young Hollywood actors, drugs eventually played a bigger role in his career than films.

Special talent, those who emerge quickly as rock stars of innovation, leaders of performance or some other organizational standout, often need special handling. If they're actors and they don't get it, their stars burn out quickly or they turn to drugs to provide the crutch or support they need.

If they're a company's bright shining light, they may have their creativity stifled by too much structure or inflexibility. Conversely, without some structure and the organizational support many clever contributors decry, the same creativity that produced a huge, memorable breakthrough product or process may not yield anything else of value for the organization's bottom line.

It's up to the talent leader to create the right kind of environment to ensure these "clevers," as Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones - authors of Clever: Leading Your Smartest, Most Creative People - refer to them in an upcoming April Talent Management feature, not only thrive but survive.

Survey Says: 42 Percent of Employees May Not Trust the Boss

By Kellye Whitney on 02-19-2010

The headline mentions 42 percent of employees don't feel their employers are looking out for their best interests, as evidenced by a fall 2009 TalentScope study of some 50,000, but CEO Jim Hatch says the number is likely 50 to 60 percent or more.

The past few years of recession, during which employers have had to be somewhat ruthless in cutting back their colleagues while offering few if any increases in compensation, have taken their toll.

To make matters worse, Hatch said there's been a logjam of lost opportunities for people who would normally leave their jobs if they were unhappy because there are no opportunities for them to leave to. This does not bode well for some companies' talent pools when the economy turns around, unless they act now.

"First, employers have to recognize this is going on," Hatch said. "They probably have upward of half their employees unhappy, and they have to identify who the high-potential key employees are, as those are obviously the people they have to make sure they have glue in the seat for."

Without preventative action, Hatch said once the economy starts turning around talent managers can expect a pronounced session of recruiting musical chairs to take place, and the people moving likely will be high performers.

Hatch said to prevent an exodus of talent it's important to evaluate whether or not pay levels are competitive; to ensure employee skills are being developed and kept current; and to make certain that employees are given interesting opportunities to move around or take on global assignments within the organization.

In addition to offering opportunities for employees to grow their careers, he said talent managers must be in touch with employee aspirations - what would they like to be doing in the organization that they're not doing now?

Transparency helps, too. Employees want to know where the organization is heading, what strategy is being used and what the implications are of that strategy and any shifts therein for them personally.

This all seems like common-sense stuff, but Hatch said the majority of organizations are either only paying lip service - a case of "of course that's what we do" - the messages are not filtering down to the actual managers or these things are not being done at all.

"[This type of employer] still views employees as being easily replaceable, especially in this economy, and they're not sticking to the basics," he said.

Another Day, Another Deal, Part II

By Mike Prokopeak on 02-05-2010

So who is going to get acquired on Friday?

As I wrote yesterday, there's been a flurry of deals in the HR market this week. On Monday, Spherion announced a deal for CFO consulting firm Tatum. The day after, Manpower made news with a deal to acquire IT staffing firm Comsys, then Monster grabbed headlines on Wednesday for its deal to acquire Yahoo HotJobs.

Then came news on Thursday that San Mateo, Calif.-based SuccessFactors has entered into an agreement to acquire Inform Business Impact (formerly Infohrm). Under announced terms, SuccessFactors will pay $25.5 million in cash and $15 million in stock for the Australian company, founded in 1982 by CEO Peter Howes.

With the move, SuccessFactors adds Inform's expertise in analytics and workforce planning to its suite of HR products.

"With this acquisition, SuccessFactors is arming CEOs, CFOs and human resource professionals with actionable, high-value insights to perform better, gain competitive advantage and lower costs," said SuccessFactors CEO Lars Dalgaard in a statement.

SuccessFactors expects to close the deal in the third quarter 2010.

Another Day, Another Deal

By Mike Prokopeak on 02-04-2010

After an extended lull following the Jan. 5 announcement that talent management vendor Authoria would join forces with recruitment specialist PeopleClick, the merger and acquisition market has picked up in a hurry.

The quiet was broken on Monday with the news that Spherion Corporation would acquire executive services firm Tatum, a specialist in the CFO market, for $46 million in cash and stock. Publicly traded Spherion, a provider of recruiting, staffing, consulting and outsourcing, is expanding its reach into a potentially lucrative executive segment, while also further establishing the company as a professional services firm.

"Tatum is well known for their deep expertise and focus on the CFO and will complement our existing professional services business," said Spherion boss Roy Krause in a press release. He estimated professional services would account for about 44 percent of combined revenue.

On Tuesday, Milwaukee, Wis.-based Manpower announced an agreement to acquire IT services company Comsys in an estimated $431 million deal. With the acquisition, Manpower appears to be bolstering Manpower Professional, the company's IT, accounting, finance, engineering, clinical and lab sciences staffing business, and Elan, its European IT staffing business. Manpower estimates that combined total revenues will be $2.5 billion.

"The acquisition of Comsys is consistent with our strategy and strengthens the continued expansion of our professional staffing services and outcome-based solutions," said Manpower CEO Jeff Joerres in a release. "Both are areas where we have significantly grown organically over the past few years, driven by our strategy to provide clients with all the talent they need, particularly in the high demand skill verticals of IT, engineering, finance and accounting."

Then on Wednesday came news that Monster Worldwide is gobbling up YahooHotJobs for $225 million. Despite the fact that Yahoo is selling HotJobs for significantly lower than the $426 million it spent for the job board back in 2001, the deal makes sense as Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz looks to shed non-core businesses and refocus on Web content and search.

As part of the deal, Monster's online job site Monster.com will supply career search listings and content on Yahoo's homepage in North America.

Sunny With a Chance of Clouds

By Mike Prokopeak on 01-29-2010

That's a description of the theme we gave to the January 2010 issue of Talent Management magazine. Our goal was to put together a package of stories dedicated to exploring the strategies that will be core to successful talent management this year.

The central idea was that the gloom of 2009 is behind us, along with its turbulent business conditions and torrential job losses, and that things are looking up this year. While striking that hopeful note, we noted there are still gray clouds on the horizon: high unemployment lingers, budgets remain tight and leaders remain cautious, particularly when it comes to investing in talent and other expenses they perceive as discretionary. (Of course, I'd argue that investment in talent is necessary, not discretionary, but it's a point I've made many other times and will save again for some other time.)

Now, a new survey report titled "From Recession to Recovery," released by Towers Watson (www.towerswatson.com/research/960) indicates a similar forecast. Employers' predictions are mixed but "guardedly optimistic." According to the senior HR executives surveyed at 459 organizations across the world, a majority plan some hiring - even while a third of them still continue to reduce the workforce.

Here's some of the numbers reported by Towers Watson:
• 85 percent of respondents plan modest hiring in 2010
• 41 percent report it's easier to retain talent now than before the recession began
• 51 percent agree that retention will be more difficult next year
• 55 percent of U.S. respondents reported that productivity rose compared to pre-recession

Retention is easier now (no shocker there, it's remarkably hard to change jobs when there's no job to change to), but will get more difficult. A rise in productivity is good, but it could have the side effect of slowing the new hire rate. All of which indicates organizations know they have to get outside to stock up, but they're bringing an umbrella with them.

"Leading companies are likely to staff cautiously, reward carefully and invest aggressively in leadership, talent management, career development and other areas that nurture employee engagement and drive enhanced customer focus in an economic recovery," the authors noted.

The bottom line? Take a step outside – the weather's nice – but be sure to bring a raincoat.

To Text or Not to Text at Work

By Kellye Whitney on 01-27-2010

Text messaging is here to stay, but it may not have a legal place in the workplace.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the City of Ontario v. Quon, to decide where exactly invasion of privacy begins for this method of employee communication.

In the case, the City of Ontario Police Department in California intercepted hundreds of text messages a police sergeant sent from his police department-issued pager, including some that were sexually explicit. The case asks whether the police department violated the Fourth amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a jury found that it did. But eight judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a dissent citing the consequences of the decision.

It's not new for employers to set policies reserving the right to monitor employee communications via e-mail and Internet activity. Should they be able to monitor text messages, too, if an employee is issued a pager or other device that allows texting?

Let us know your opinion or what your organization is doing in practice on the network.

The Snake Effect of Mean People on Forums

By Kellye Whitney on 01-20-2010

You can get lost in some of the comment streams that follow blog posts, videos and photos on the Internet. You can find stream-of-consciousness ramblings, vitriol, whining, racist rants, plain old stupidity and, every once in a while, a rare beam of humor laced with common sense. After scrolling through a bunch of muck, when you stumble across one of these gems, you just have to laugh.

Case in point: I looked at thesuperficial.com following the Golden Globes to check out the dresses. The pop culture Web site can be hilarious in that mean, tongue-in-cheek way as it makes fun of celebrities, and in the middle of the Globes coverage there was a link to another pop culture Web site story discussing how supermodel Gisele Bundchen had donated $1.5 million to Haiti relief.

One reader went off on a paragraph-long rant about how it's the least Bundchen could do since she pulled in $35 million last year for being a walking coat hanger. Further, if he or she had that kind of money, it would go to much better use than whatever Gisele was doing with her money.

Another reader followed up using less than five words to respond: "No, you wouldn't." I almost popped a button laughing.

I mean, come on! I'm sorry, but no matter how much money someone has, donating $1.5 million dollars to strangers is nothing to sneeze at. Yet in our comment-on-demand, really, almost everything-on-demand society, it's all too easy for someone to say what someone else should do, and some of that free speech-covered disrespect has filtered into the workplace.

I've heard countless tales of co-workers being asked the rudest questions by their peers, or being forced to listen with stiff, phony smiles as the tackiest, most inappropriate exploits are recounted over and over to anyone who will listen. I have personally been victim to some ridiculous bad manners and co-worker-induced embarrassment after someone's mouth ran away with him or her.

I know managers have enough to deal with - tying pay to performance, getting work done at the speed of light with half the staff they should have following the recession, and myriad other talent challenges. But I say, talent leaders, be vigilant against the horrors of the forum. The snake effect of bad behavior has wormed its way into the office and must be stamped out like a spark near a box of firecrackers.

Not only is forum bad behavior a threat to the use of social networking in talent processes, it's a threat to workplace peace of mind in a world where a $1.5 million gift is sneered at like, "Is that all?"

What Do You Mean by That?

By Kellye Whitney on 01-13-2010

Technology has to be one of the most significant causes of miscommunication and inefficiency in the workplace. And here I don't just mean because people randomly infer weird things based on oddly placed punctuation - or no punctuation - in e-mails and attribute pauses in conference calls to disagreement with the idea presented instead of an equipment-generated distance gap. I'm talking about the fact that many of us now lack social skills because we're always plugged into something rather than talking face to face.

It's not that face-to-face communication doesn't have its ups and downs. Misunderstandings are to communication what air is to breathing, no matter what the vehicle. But when you're face to face, it's easier to clear up whatever may have gone wrong. That's assuming, however, both parties are operating from a place of mutual respect and a desire to resolve the issue.

I've run across more than one article recently discussing this problem. And as scary as it may sound to die hard techno-geeks, some old ways are still best.

For instance, when two employees are going at it via e-mail - tossing short, snarky, detail-deficient phrases laden with thinly veiled you're-a-rotten-so-and-so-but-I-can't-tell-you-'cause-we're-at-work vibes back and forth instead of pertinent information - eventually, someone's gotta be the bigger (wo)man, get up from the desk, and stand in front of the other party with the proverbial olive branch extended.

Further, if managers get wind of this type of behavior, they have to take it seriously. Misunderstandings don't just lead to gossip - another productivity killer - they also can lead to mistakes. People may deliberately stop communicating with team members who require their input in order to complete job tasks. Worse, these avoidance techniques can be contagious. If someone is ostracized, others may follow suit, and collaboration and innovation suffer accordingly.

Lest there be some misunderstanding, I'm a die-hard e-mail lover, and I'm warming up to the value of Twitter, but we've gotta play nice at work. And sometimes that means we have to actually talk to each other. You know, like they did in the old days.

No 'I' in Team

By Mike Prokopeak on 01-12-2010

For better or worse, it's the wins that count and not necessarily how you get them. Retired basketball great Michael Jordan made that point clear in his NBA Hall of Fame induction speech last September.

Jordan told of how, as he walked off the court following a key playoff win he very nearly single-handedly delivered, Chicago Bulls assistant coach Tex Winter told him, "There's no 'I' in team." Without a moment's hesitation, Jordan shot back, "But there is in win."

Jordan, one of the greatest professional basketball players of all time, delivered a speech full of barbs aimed at those who ever doubted his ability. After an evening of gracious, diplomatic acceptance addresses from the other inductees, it felt like a bucket of cold water right in the face.

Here was Jordan unbridled, sharing how slights - some real, some perceived - spurred him on to higher levels of performance. While other speakers thanked their teammates, coaches and families, Jordan talked about his foes, his competitors and anyone and everyone who he felt didn't give him his due, going as far back as junior high school.

All of these experiences and incidents fueled his legendary competitive fire, quite obviously still blazing even after several years out of the spotlight. In fact, Jordan challenged the audience not to believe in his ability and will to win - threatening to come out of retirement at age 46 to show he can still play with, and beat, the best.

Like many, I admire Jordan's will to win and unwavering determination to overcome obstacles. Yet at the same time, I was disappointed he didn't take more time to acknowledge the help he received along the way, from his family, teammates and supporters. That point aside, it's his "no 'I' in team" rejoinder that still sticks with me months after his speech.

There's no "I" in team, but there is in win. From a grammatical standpoint, it's an inarguable point with an unassailable logic. From a philosophical standpoint, it's a little more murky. From a young age, coaches teach athletes that being a good, unselfish teammate is the key to success. And it's true - a skilled team and effective teamwork are critical to lasting success.

But as we get older, the moral certainty of the philosophy starts to crumble. We see individual athletes sign unbelievably lavish contracts rewarding them for their individual skills, not their ability to work with a team. CEOs rise and fall based on the financial results they deliver, not on the team they create.

Jordan's little story elegantly captures the state of business at the beginning of a new year. Ask most executives what 2009 was about, and many would say survival. Last year was about the win, regardless of the toll it took. Teamwork, a positive corporate culture, development and engagement of the workforce - the softer side of business took lower priority as organizations wrestled with the bottom line. Did it really matter if we had a good team if it didn't lead to success?

But as we turn to the next phase of business, at least chronologically if not yet economically, it's time to look beyond the immediate win. Does the win matter as much if you don't have a good team to sustain the success? And what's our role in delivering lasting wins? It's a question that talent managers need to ask, both as individuals and as a profession, as they enter 2010.

There are important challenges facing talent managers in the year ahead, from rebuilding employee loyalty and effectively engaging employees, integrating measurement to recruiting in recession and recovery and managing performance.

So, while the win is and will remain what matters, the new year offers us a chance to start a new game. In this game, we're all responsible for delivering the win. The question is, will we be in the game when it's all on the line? Are you one of the "I's" in your team's win?

It's Rough Out There

By Kellye Whitney on 12-22-2009

The talent leader's job is not easy in the recruiting arena. Thanks to a dodgy economy, there are literally thousands of resumes to sift through for any one position. Not only do managers have to evaluate more resumes than normal, but much like IT pros with certification test dumps, they have to contend with seriously savvy liars who - get this - may be patronizing services that help them lie convincingly on their resumes.

A service on CareerExcuse.com that was launched earlier this year offers to help customers find jobs at a reasonable cost by whatever deceptive means they're prepared to pay for.

According to http://www.kens5.com/news/consumer/Online-business-markets-deception-70306457.html, Founder and Principal William Schmidt said he got the inspiration for his business from hearing people and seeing people online who were looking for resume references.

After purchasing a subscription, customers can put down fake jobs complete with a phone number that rings at Career Excuse, where someone will verify employment.

According to the article, this service is not illegal because a resume is not a legal document; therefore, people can fib without paying a legal price.

Career Excuse offers customers different levels of membership, and despite the obvious ethical questions the service raises, it does have a few lines it won't cross: It won't provide service for any governmental or medical agency.

Well, I don't know about you, but knowing that even professional liars have some scruples makes me feel so much better.

Bah Humbug

By Kellye Whitney on 12-15-2009

Hewitt just released findings from its annual Holiday Bonus Survey. Shock of the world: The number of companies offering holiday bonuses this year is the lowest on record.

Only 24 percent of companies are offering holiday bonuses this year, down from 42 percent in 2008. And only 60 percent of companies will fund holiday parties, down from 71 percent in 2008. Of those that do host holiday parties, the budget planned is $15,000, down from $19,000 in 2008.

I'm not surprised at the findings. Things are still tough out there, despite many optimistic rumblings about recovery. It's sad really. Company outings help to boost or promote seasonal feelings of goodwill and celebration, they also improve employee morale and open up lines of communication as different departments or groups mingle together in a festive setting.

Money shouldn't stand in the way of managers and employees sharing dialogue, appreciating each others' contributions and celebrating organizational or individual achievement. In the absence of cash, milestones big and small should be celebrated in other ways: non-monetary incentives and rewards, thank yous, development via stretch assignments and opportunities to lead or collaborate on inter-departmental projects.

Simple conversations can be effective tools to relay appreciation or increase team effectiveness, and they don't require any investment but time and effort. Despite the lack of ready cash flow, it's still the season to be sharing.

Only instead of cash, offer your time and consideration.

How to Hire and Manage Seasonal Employees

By Thomas Boyle on 12-01-2009

It's that time of year again! A time you may have learned to dread if you live in the HR world. Not because of the cold weather, extra pounds and travel delays - but because of the stress of finding the right seasonal employees.

It can be hard to find the perfect team for your business, but add the challenge of having to find a large number of people in a short amount of time and things can get overwhelming.

Handling five key items properly can ease the stress of hiring seasonal employees.

The Job Posting
Post a clear ad about positions you are hiring for and qualifications needed to be considered. The ad should clearly state that the job is seasonal or contract, the expected time frame for the position and any special skills needed, including physical requirements or high-level customer service ability. This can help you save time and money by not reviewing people who do not meet the required qualifications.

Post jobs to all relevant sites to get postings in front of as many potential candidates as possible. Applicant tracking software can help push out job postings to corporate intranets or a company's career page and hundreds of job boards all at once, saving the time and stress of having to do it site by site.

In addition to standard job boards and job distribution channels, many companies use social media to reach active and passive job seekers by making positions more viral. All it takes is one new employee to tweet or comment about an exciting seasonal opportunity to attract a large number of other qualified candidates without spending any advertising money.

Push the Talent Brand
From the first interaction with a potential candidate and throughout the entire hiring process, demonstrate your talent brand and culture to seasonal employees. It will make candidates better informed about your company and culture and more productive, and it will help integrate them into your organization more quickly.

Keep in mind that even if you are only offering seasonal employment now, you will at some point offer full-time positions, and your interactions with potential candidates leave a lasting impression. Having a clear talent brand and conveying it to candidates tells potential employees what it is like to work with you and what would be expected of them if they were brought onboard. Just because they are seasonal employees does not mean you should lower your standard of what you expect of employees, and your talent brand will convey that.

It is a great idea to have a comprehensive and branded career portal on your Web site where candidates can ask questions about open positions and learn about the work environment. It provides them an opportunity to find out if they are a fit for your company and provides you an opportunity to spread your employment brand.

Eliminate Paperwork
On-boarding software can eliminate new hire paper forms and deliver and manage all forms online. Apart from helping the environment, this practice saves time spent managing paper and saves money spent purchasing it.

In short-term jobs, getting candidates ready to work as fast as possible is critical. Going paperless allows candidates to fill out their paperwork before their first day, which allows them to hit the ground running.

Manage the Talent Pipeline
With seasonal hiring, it is important to engage candidates quickly. Utilize a system that can alert you of new candidates so you can respond as fast as possible. That same system can help you track resumes coming in year-round and organize the flood of resumes received right before seasonal hiring begins. One of the first steps in finding the right employee is being able to find employees' information.

Remember to engage last year's seasonal hires with passive candidate communication leading up to seasonal hiring. It is always best to engage them before they engage your competition. Bringing back former seasonal workers can lead to a much faster time to productivity and better customer service levels. To keep past employees engaged throughout the year, send e-mails and newsletters with updates on the company; provide information on when the next seasonal hiring will begin; and set up Facebook and Twitter accounts to connect with the employees.

Streamline Training Programs
On-boarding software can help eliminate time spent training and reduce costs associated with learning on the job. It also can reduce the time co-workers and supervisors have to spend training each new employee.

Track and measure all tasks associated with seasonal hires to ensure a consistent and valuable experience for the new holiday workforce. By streamlining and tracking training, you guarantee new hires are equipped to handle your busiest time of year.

As a bonus, tracking the new hires' training will allow you to review the information later and handpick the best employees for potential full-time hire or to be added to the list of seasonal employees you want to make sure to engage before the next seasonal hiring.

Thomas Boyle is director of product strategy at SilkRoad Technology. He can be reached at editor@talentmgt.com.

Damn It, Gina!

By Kellye Whitney on 11-17-2009

I have a friend named TJ, who, for most of 2008, answered all queries, salutations and pretty much any other conversational piece with, “Damn it, Gina!” I’m entirely not sure why he chose this particular phrase, but I’m pretty sure it had something to do with an episode - or two - of the television show “Martin.”

The GINA that will become effective Nov. 21, 2009 - the employment-related provisions for the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 - isn’t nearly as amusing as old TJ. According to the EEOC, GINA will prevent talent managers from intentionally acquiring or using the genetic information of applicants and employees.

The legislation refers to data about an individual's genetic tests and genetic tests of family members, as well as family medical history. This genetic information doesn’t refer to information about someone’s sex or age or that individual's family members, or information that an individual currently has a disease or disorder, says the EEOC. Genetic information also does not include tests for alcohol or drug use.

I’d love to know the exact story behind the incident that precipitated this. I’m assuming someone, somewhere got hold of some medical info they shouldn’t have and then used it to discriminate against someone else, or at least thought about or pretended like they were going to discriminate, and some wise soul jumped in to put a stop to it.

But all I can say is, what on earth will people find to discriminate against you with next? Don’t answer that.

Since the law requires employers to post a notice with GINA information, talent managers will want to ensure they get one of the EEOC posters to help employers comply with the notice requirements, and they should update the organization’s nondiscrimination policies accordingly.

Otherwise, a slip-up may prompt you to say, “Damn it, GINA!”

Note: This blog was not intended to be funny, so if you didn’t laugh, don’t feel bad.

Mobile Recruiting Is Hot

By Kellye Whitney on 11-10-2009

It was inevitable: Recruiting is now as convenient as visiting the local Starbucks - at least in theory. Thanks to mobile recruiting tools, recruiters can source candidates at any time of day from anywhere, and then connect with potential candidates via their smart phone either by calling or text messaging.

AutoSearch, a Web-based sourcing tool for recruiters, recently launched an iPhone application offering recruiters “targeted and instantaneous candidate results while on-the-go.”

The application runs off of AutoSearch’s sourcing platform and filtering technology and enables users to enter keywords, such as job title, company name or skill set; select a geographic location; and then immediately see the most relevant candidates from leading business and social networking sites.

“Being able to source candidates on the go, whether waiting in line at a flu shot clinic or for a routine dentist appointment, gives recruiters a definitive leg up on recruiters who are dependent upon their office computers or laptops,” said Lori Fenstermaker, founder of AutoSearch.

Apparently, every minute counts in the hunt for talent. Fenstermaker said the most successful recruiters spend their time contacting candidates in an efficient, targeted way - not burning hours constructing search strings and executing them on dozens of business and social media Web sites.

“The widespread adoption of and increased participation in social media has no doubt changed the recruiting process, as the number of qualified candidates appearing online has skyrocketed,” Fenstermaker said. “Last fall, we were asked to source a field service technologist for an electronics lighting company. At that point, there weren’t any substantial candidates with that expertise to be found online, but this year, the same search yielded a number of qualified candidates online. Social media today is table stakes for job hunters and recruiters alike.”

To Catch a Thief

By Kellye Whitney on 11-02-2009

I was reading an article titled “Grand Theft Idea” by Jared Shelly, which discussed a new study from OfficeTeam, a California-based staffing service, that reports 29 percent of workers say a co-worker has taken credit for their ideas at some point in their careers.

More than half of the study respondents who had their ideas stolen said they didn't do anything about it. Of the 49 percent who did respond, 26 percent let other employees know it was their idea, 13 percent informed their manager and 13 percent confronted the thief - hopefully mid-breakfast meeting, while that person was eating a jelly doughnut.

But I wonder. When talent managers become aware that someone has stolen another person’s idea, what’s the usual protocol? Remember, I’m a humble journalist, not an HR practitioner, so bear with my ignorance here. Is it a kind of, “Huh. Note to self: So and so is a thief; she’s out of the succession pipeline on grounds of no integrity.” Or, is it a more overt dance, where behind closed doors, you pull that person aside and say, “X, now, you know that wasn’t your idea. You just robbed poor Tim blind!”

In journalism land, when your idea gets stolen, you either do nothing because you were too slow and got scooped, or you frown hard enough to leave parentheses around your mouth because you trusted someone and they screwed you over, or you throw a big ol’ baby screaming tantrum and tell everyone what happened - and no one believes you because you were too slow and got scooped.

Have you ever been the victim of an idea thief? If so, how did you respond? Tell us your story on the Talent Management Network.

Creative Sabbaticals Cure Burnout

By Kellye Whitney on 10-27-2009

I read an interesting article on HarvardBusiness.org that discussed research that confirms “the wandering mind is more likely to have a ‘Eureka!’ moment of clarity and creativity. Taking breaks and zoning out from everyday tasks gives our brains time to do a kind of long-term, big-picture thinking that immediate engagement with bosses and clients and e-mail and meetings does not.” (http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/trapani/2009/10/increase-your-productivity-by.html)

I believe that. It’s only when the pressure’s off, so to speak, that the mind has the freedom to entertain ideas and solutions outside the norm, pondering different ways to make the unusual work as well, or hopefully better, than the usual.

The piece goes on to discuss designer Stefan Sagmeister, who closes his New York-based design studio “for an entire year of creative rejuvenation” every seven years. Sagmeister is apparently so serious about his downtime that he declined the opportunity to design a poster for the Obama campaign while he was on sabbatical.

Article author Gina Trapani also references a 2004 Harper’s article by Mark Slouka titled “Quitting the Paint Factory.”

“Idleness is not just a psychological necessity, requisite to the construction of a complete human being; it constitutes as well a kind of political space, a space as necessary to the workings of an actual democracy as, say, a free press. 
 All manner of things can grow out of that fallow soil. Not for nothing did our mothers grow suspicious when we had ‘too much time on our hands.’ They knew we might be up to something.”

In today’s on-the-go-while-sprinting-and-connected-24-hours-to-a-mobile-device workplace, it must take dedication - not to mention an extremely understanding and adaptable workplace - to pull off a creative sabbatical. Honestly, I can’t think of many industries, outside of art or fashion, where it would even be possible.

Employees would be too fearful of losing their jobs, for one, and most managers these days are already too understaffed to make the logistical maneuvering sabbaticals would require easy to execute.

Creative sabbaticals do sound like a great way to advance development for those next in line, however. With the proper transition time and job shadowing, this kind of action-oriented development would be an ideal way to engage those next in line for promotion and facilitate succession planning activities.

I can’t say that idea came to me during a creative trance, though. I’m pretty sure I read it somewhere.

National Boss Day: No Cause for Celebration?

By Kellye Whitney on 10-13-2009

This Friday is National Boss Day, but according to findings from Adecco Group North America’s latest American Workplace Insights Survey, a few blights may tarnish any celebrations planned.

Results show 53 percent of workers don’t think their boss is honest. Further, 25 percent of respondents said they believe their boss is dishonest about their job security. Some 28 percent of workers polled would lay off or fire their boss if given the option. Ouch.

Some of that bad feeling is undoubtedly the result of economic pressure; whether or not relief is in sight on that score, talent managers should take note of that level of enmity. Trust is a critical component in the manager-employee relationship, and while it doesn’t take much to destroy trust, it takes considerable effort to rebuild or instill it.

The survey did reveal some good news. Some 65 percent of employees would not change anything about their relationship with their boss. And only 39 percent of workers would take their boss’s job if offered. So it would appear employees do recognize their immediate supervisors don’t always have it easy in today’s workplace.

The survey did offer some recession-specific findings:
‱ Satisfaction still depends on the boss-employee relationship. Almost all workers (89 percent) still think their relationship with their boss is important for their job satisfaction.
‱ Accessibility remains unchanged. Eighty-seven percent of workers think their boss is just as accessible as he or she was pre-recession.
‱ Respect has only marginally increased. Only 14 percent of workers respect their boss more since the recession began.
‱ Performance reviews are still in place. Eighty-seven percent of workers think their boss has the same focus on the performance review process as he or she did pre-recession.

Whether celebrating the holiday with peers or direct reports, talent managers should make time to look around the office. Disgruntled employees will not be offering flowers, and while they may not be actively plotting the boss’s demise, they may be waiting quietly for the economy to improve so they can find a boss they like better.

Are You Willing to Work Yourself to Death?

By Kellye Whitney on 10-06-2009

I would never in a million years blame an organization for driving someone to take their own life. That’s just too personal a decision. But I would say that on-the-job stress can contribute significantly to someone’s unhappiness.

Still, you have to wonder, when you read a story with the headline “Worked to death: When going to work kills,” what exactly is going on? (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/06/work.death/index.html)

The CNN article, which focused on the 24 employee suicides that have happened since 2008 at France Telecom, highlighted one worker, a father of two who jumped off a bridge to his death. Apparently, the man left a note suggesting the atmosphere at work was part of the reason he committed suicide.

The article said that stress, which has been exacerbated by mass restructuring and layoffs due to the economy, is just one workplace hazard that can take a toll on employees’ health.

It said, “Working too hard can be just as dangerous. In Japan, deaths among overworked employees are so common there is even a word to describe the phenomenon - ‘karoshi,’ or ‘death from overwork.’

“Toshiro Ueyanagi, a lawyer specializing in cases of ‘karoshi,’ told CNN that most deaths related to overwork are from heart attacks and strokes and that overwork can also result in mental illness.

“Ueyanagi says it can be hard to prove that a death is the result of overwork and while the Japanese government recognized 377 cases of ‘karoshi’ last year, he believes the number could be closer to 10,000.

“‘I think there are two reasons why ‘karoshi’ is prevalent in Japan - a hard-working tradition and very weak laws and regulation in the workplace,’ he told CNN.”

It’s something for talent leaders to think about. Toxic work environments exist; they affect people’s health and well being; they impact the bottom line; and apparently they can impact life and death.

Who’s Minding the Store?

By Kellye Whitney on 09-29-2009

Modern office workers have it tough. Many are doing the work of two or more people in the wake of economy-related staff cuts and increasing business pressures to improve performance, to increase speed of action without compromising quality and just generally to create sustainable, revenue-generating results.

Often those daily responsibilities remain static, even when employees are obliged to be out of the office for business. But is it responsible to expect employees to maintain their normal duties as well as function in a professional capacity at an out-of-town conference or other event?

Some talent managers say no, backups must be found. Arrangements must be made to ensure someone will pick up the slack and do what needs to be done in an employee’s absence. Further, it’s best for the employee, with a manager’s approval, to make those arrangements, as he or she is closest to the tasks that need to be completed.

But what happens when the employee fails to do so and causes chaos in an office? Is it reasonable to punish or, at the very least, deliver a dressing down to the person who created havoc for those left in the office?

It might depend on the severity of the problem. It might depend on whether there’s a monetary amount attached to the faux pas, or any disciplinary action could depend on how many people were inconvenienced by the employee’s failure to plan ahead or meet established obligations.

How do you handle employees’ work if they’re out of the office? Share your ideas or best practices on the Talent Management Network.

Fear or Motivation?

By Chip Wilson on 09-15-2009

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 6.3 percent increase in productivity from the business sector for the second quarter of 2009. This is the largest productivity gain since 2003. As leaders, we need to respond carefully to this information. Should we take this knowledge and use it to our advantage? Do we need to reward hardworking employees and remove some stress from their lives, when possible?

The answer to each question is “yes.” Ignoring that people are capable of increasing their productivity would be foolish. We should, however, examine the motivation behind this change. If the motivation is fear, rather than commitment, this leap in productivity will be short-lived. If employees commit to work harder because they trust their companies and their leaders’ ethics, they will continue to perform at their best.

Fear-Based Productivity
When people fear unemployment, a sudden improvement in productivity is the natural result. Should employees remain in this state of fear, they will become frustrated trying to meet the ever-growing demands of a job that does not reward them. If people feel used, they will lose interest, decrease productivity or seek more compassionate companies.

Given the current job market, it is easy to assume unhappy employees are expendable. “They should be grateful to have a job,” is a common phrase. This may be true, but when people feel compelled to work overtime, cut their benefits and forgo raises, gratitude will lead to resentment. This resentment is cemented when employees are threatened if they do not take on more responsibility.

Think of the character Peter Gibbons from the movie “Office Space.” He speaks for many unmotivated, undervalued employees when he explains his feelings toward a company that gives him only two incentives to work: not being hassled by superiors and fear of losing his job — “It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.”

Of course, one can always fire employees who don’t care, or wait for them to leave, but that becomes an expensive habit. The ethical and fiscally responsible alternative is to motivate people by earning their trust.

Productivity Based on Trust and Commitment
In order to prevent resentment from building, maintain a level of respect and honesty. Employees who view leaders as people of ethical integrity will act out of commitment rather than compliance.

When budget cuts are necessary, they should apply to those in leadership as well as employees. If leaders underpay employees and flaunt a lavish lifestyle while they are struggling to make ends meet, will they feel valued? Do what is necessary to provide a fair wage and a positive work environment so employees at every level realize their jobs are important. Then they will work as a team committed to a common goal.

Employees need to know their leaders support them and want them to succeed. Keeping everyone informed will leave no room for unfounded fears. Respect people enough to tell them the truth, even if the truth is bad news. Trusting them with important information will teach them to trust you.

When leaders are fortunate enough to have committed employees who believe in them and the company, they should take the time to sincerely thank them for their dedication and hard work. Those willing and able to perform additional projects will have to put in more hours, taking time out of their personal lives. Treating extra work as a personal sacrifice, rather than an expectation, will lead to commitment and maintain a positive work environment.

To see continued increases in productivity, leaders must make an effort to ensure people work from an attitude of commitment rather than fear. When leaders set the example and act with integrity, they earn employees’ trust. Trust allows people to work from a place of commitment, and commitment leads to long-term productivity. So, will we choose fear or motivation?

Chip Wilson is CEO of 360 Solutions, a consulting business. He can be reached at editor@talentmgt.com.

Lessons From the Material Girl

By Kellye Whitney on 09-08-2009

Like many professionals today, I get tiny doses of wisdom from the fanciful e-mails that appear in my inbox each day. Today, one appeared that read “20 Career Lessons From Celebrities.”

Pop culture is a guilty pleasure for me, so of course this got my attention. The first lesson was from Madonna: Reinvent yourself often. Always stay fresh and relevant.

The blurb talked about how Madonna has had as many looks as she has albums in her 30-plus-year career, insisting on reinvention so much, in fact, she named a music tour after the concept. This, said the blurb, has helped her remain at “the forefront of the global music industry.”

The piece said the main lesson to be learned from the pop icon is “to stay fresh, keep your skills up to date and be adaptable to new directions in your career.”

The talent leader is no different. The economy may have added a sense of urgency to the concept of relevancy, but the lesson remains sound no matter what’s going on in the financial or housing markets.

In order for talent management executives to contribute on a substantive and strategic level, they must remain attuned to the changing business environment. They must be flexible, quick to adapt to an evolving global marketplace and receptive to internal and external consumer and stakeholder requirements.

In the pop world, the alternative for an artist would equal boring, irrelevant and easily dismissed - music no one would listen to, talk about or purchase. The result in the HR and business space isn’t much different.

New Zealand Court Says Being Annoying via E-Mail Is OK

By Kellye Whitney on 09-01-2009

A woman who was fired for sending a plethora of “confrontational” e-mails, written all in caps and various colors, successfully won a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal to the tune of $17,000.

Vicki Walker, who worked as a financial controller for Auckland, New Zealand’s ProCare Health organization, was accused of creating disharmony in the workplace after her e-mails to co-workers with detailed instructions on how forms should be properly filled out rubbed someone the wrong way.

Walker, who plans to lodge additional complaints for more compensation, is calling “for greater protection for white-collar workers from the financial, emotional and mental stresses involved in a dispute with a big corporate employer,” according to The New Zealand Herald.

"I am a single woman with a mortgage, and I had to re-mortgage my home and borrow money from my sister to make it through," she said in the article. "They nearly ruined my life."

During the ordeal, Walker said a number of e-mails she had sent were discussed, but only one was used as evidence.

“The e-mail, which advises her team how to fill out staff claim forms, specifies a time and date highlighted in bold red, and a sentence written in capitals and highlighted in bold blue. It reads: ‘To ensure your staff claim is processed and paid, please do follow the below checklist,’” said the article.

If the e-mails were that hard-core, it might have been simpler to tell her to cool it. It would have saved the company a substantial payout, not to mention a lot of rather ridiculous heat. Who wants their company under the spotlight, especially for something like this?

What do you think? Is e-mail etiquette on the job critical? More importantly, is it worth suing over? Let us know on the Talent Management Network.

Battling Paranoia

By Kellye Whitney on 08-25-2009

I have become a consummate eavesdropper. I listen in on conversations everywhere I go. I excuse this in the name of journalistically motivated data gathering because I often use what I hear in my work. This blog is a frequent recipient of these nuggets, and the people whose conversations I “borrow,” of course, remain nameless.

This afternoon in the gym locker room, I listened as one woman told another how she’d freaked out that morning after seeing a new face in the office that no one had introduced.

She was quite sheepish as she told her workout partner the story. Apparently her organization has been downsizing fairly heavily in recent months. When she came in to work and saw someone in a black suit with a portfolio waiting in the lobby, she jumped to the conclusion she personally was being replaced.

Now, she realized the chances of her being replaced were as likely as anyone else, but she was a senior staffer, thus one of the highest paid in the company, and she’d already watched a few of her peers exit the office with boxed belongings in hand. The woman said she was so upset at the sight of this interviewee - who turned out to be a vendor, not a new recruit at all - she had to spend 10 minutes in the bathroom getting herself together.

The economy is scheduled for an upswing, but organizations are still settling the dust, so to speak. Workers are uncertain and unsure of their places in newly talent-shorn offices. As if to confirm my suppositions, a book arrived on my desk today titled Healing the Wounds: Overcoming the Trauma of Layoffs and Revitalizing Downsized Organizations.

What scary symptoms are you seeing in your workforce? How are you easing frazzled, fearful nerves and maintaining productivity in this time of inevitable upheaval? Tell us your story on the Talent Management Network.

The Direct Report Hot Line

By Kellye Whitney on 08-17-2009

Meetings can be good. Many run too long and many are too boring, but some benefit the work that we do and occasionally, when the conversation runs particularly hot, ideas form.

I participated in a regularly scheduled meeting recently where a discussion of editorial content prompted the following tidbit that took root in my brain: Emotional intelligence is a hot topic for readers because many of us don’t understand the connections between our behavior and experiences and how we are perceived or how effective we are in the workplace.

Of course, the topic of emotional intelligence is more complex than that simplified sentence, but the idea that we lack some sort of fundamental awareness struck me rather hard.

Do we, as managers, often fail to pick up on clues from our direct reports that our actions are influencing their behavior or productivity in a negative way? Off the top of my head, I’d answer that with a big fat “yes.” If not, why would I write about this stuff?

So the question becomes: How do you recognize when the problem isn’t a disengaged employee, a process or procedure that has outlived its usefulness or a lack of development, but you?

Who will tell us these things? Sure, some people have mentors or receive coaching to strengthen weaknesses and share some truths. But a relatively small percentage of leaders enjoy that kind of development. There’s the formal review process, but most happen annually, though savvier organizations execute feedback sessions regularly. There are also employee surveys, but again, in most organizations these don’t happen often enough to make a substantive difference in managerial effectiveness.

Should employees be given a forum to tell us about ourselves? A kind of Direct Report Hot Line where employees can air their grievances in real time in a safe - hopefully respectful - way?

Shining a light or holding up a mirror with the intention of improving managerial effectiveness by way of increased emotional intelligence - this is affecting you this way because of this characteristic - holds merit. But the question is: Can most managers take the heat and the scrutiny?

What do you think? Share your thoughts on the value of emotional intelligence on the Talent Management Network.

Do Employees Have Privacy? Sure, to a Point

By Kellye Whitney on 08-11-2009

Last week the California Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in employers’ favor in Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc., which said that two employees could not win an invasion of privacy claim against their employer even though the employer set up a hidden video camera in their office. (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147552.PDF)

Now, when I first read about the case, I thought, what?! Employers can set up video cameras with impunity? Huh. But because the camera was not activated during business hours - the employer was attempting to catch someone accessing porn off the clock - and the plaintiffs weren’t actually recorded, their suit was moot.

While the court held that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their invasion of privacy claim, it did find the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace, and their privacy was intruded upon by the hidden surveillance system. But that wasn’t enough to win their claim.

To win, the plaintiffs - clerical workers who shared an office - would have had to prove the intrusion was “highly offensive” to a reasonable person and “sufficiently serious” and unwarranted as to constitute an “egregious breach of social norms.” In this case, the court held that the employer’s conduct was neither highly offensive nor sufficiently serious.

One blogger wrote: “...there is no ‘bright line’ rule as to when an employee has an expectation of privacy or when an employer’s conduct may violate employee privacy. The analysis is very fact specific and employers are cautioned to seek legal advice before implementing measures that may intrude on employee privacy.” (http://www.callaborlaw.com/archives/court-decisions-california-supreme-court-upholds-limitations-on-workplace-right-to-privacy.html)

So, take that, after-hours, company-computer porn viewers!

Making Time for Development

By Kellye Whitney on 08-04-2009

Last week’s blog concerned the talent industry’s growing need to have career conversations in order to retain talent who may be planning to flee once the economy recovers.

My next thought was, OK, but how? Yes, employees are gasping for development opportunities, and not just to increase their employability for the next company. Many want to learn and grow more efficient at their current jobs and become more skilled in preparation for the next position at the same company.

So, how does today’s time- and resource-strapped talent manager make employee development a priority? When employees and managers are being asked to do more with less, fulfill more obligations — all of which are important — take over responsibilities from peers who’ve been separated or staff who were never hired due to shrinking budgets, what’s the solution?

Does it mean engaging external mentors at sister organizations? Does it mean offering verbal encouragement and suggestions during the day where applicable in an informal way? If so, how does that translate to concrete development? Is there a connection between the two? Should there be?

It’s not an easy question to answer, and it’s not like the average talent manager can throw some money at the problem — via expert or consultant — and see what develops. What are you doing in your organization to make time for development? What do your employees say about the topic? Do they have suggestions to offer?

Share your thoughts on the Talent Management Network.

Career Conversations

By Kellye Whitney on 07-28-2009

A few months ago, all any talent leader heard was economic downturn this and economic downturn that. Now that signs of recovery are hovering valiantly in view, the conversation has shifted - thank goodness - to thoughts of recovery.

Whether it’s recovery talk, scenario planning, rebuilding the workforce or preparing for the upturn, most of these new conversations involve engagement, productivity and retention - and how to achieve all of the above.

Experts are saying talent leaders should be on guard for massive voluntary turnover as talented employees prepare to jump ship once the economic slowdown speeds back up. This valid warning has led many to explore a strategy centered on having effective career conversations with valued or high-potential talent. Specifically, talent managers are deciphering the best ways to uncover development opportunities - because there may not be as many promotions to offer since many boomers are staying put - and identify methods to retain those who may be feeling bruised or neglected following the economy-driven layoff, pay cut, bonus-less time period we’re all just now poking our heads out from under.

It’s a good move. I can’t say that a majority of organizations, at least not those I’ve learned anything about, are executing these career conversations currently. Many are just now coming to the realization that they’re necessary.

That’s disturbing. You hear so often that “people are our greatest asset,” but if they are, why on earth wouldn’t you ask your most valuable assets what they want, where they see themselves in the organization and what you can do to help them be happier and more productive in their work?

Granted, everyone’s been pretty busy surviving these past months, but still - people have needs. Employees want to advance. Bottom line.

A Second Chance

By Kellye Whitney on 07-21-2009

I saw a movie over the weekend called “The Lazarus Project.” Not exactly Oscar-worthy, but it reintroduced a topic that intrigued me a few months ago thanks to an article in the Chicago Tribune: Should certain criminals be given a break in the job market?

It’s been a while since I read the article, but the gist of it was: Job seekers with nonviolent criminal records deserve a second chance, but they often don’t get one because their criminal records follow them around like scarlet letters.

In “The Lazarus Project,” Paul Walker’s character Ben Garvey did time for theft as a young man, but once out of jail, he married, had a daughter and went to work every day at a job where he was promoted and given responsibility over other employees. He did not abuse drugs or alcohol. It was only after his boss put him up for another promotion that his record was discovered via background check. With a heavy heart, his boss was forced to fire him. This led to other things, but the point is that Ben had totally cleaned up his act.

Before “corporate bigwigs” forced his hand, his current boss often told Ben he was one of the best workers he’d ever had. Yet, Ben lived in the fear — one that was ultimately realized — that he would be found out and his new, aboveboard, legal life would be jeopardized.

There’s another component. Ben, and as a result, his family, was poor. His criminal record kept him from going after well-paid jobs, dooming his family to a hand-to-mouth existence.

I can understand employers being leery of hiring repeat offenders or violent criminals, but what about the people who made a mistake once, 10 years ago? If they’ve paid their debt to society, haven’t gotten into any more trouble and are willing to work like everyone else, don’t they deserve a second chance, a promotion or a well-paid job? Can such a person even be called a criminal anymore?

What do you think? Let us know on the Talent Management Network, under the subject line “Second Chance.”

Relationships

By Kellye Whitney on 07-14-2009

Relationships in the workplace — and here I refer to the interplay between colleagues, not something of a sexual nature — can be tricky.

They’re not unlike family dynamics. For instance, the conversation between an older and younger sibling could easily be compared to that between a supervisor and a subordinate. In these scenarios, both the older sibling and the supervisor likely think that because of greater experience, and perhaps even age, their opinions should be followed without question.

But that’s a narrow-minded viewpoint. Even if the senior leader or sibling is in possession of more information, perhaps information that is specifically relevant to the situation at hand, that does not mean the subordinate’s contribution is meritless. The subordinate could introduce a new way of thinking, an alternate viewpoint that may have future implications, even if it’s not immediately valuable.

It’s how we listen and discuss these alternate viewpoints that counts most. Are we condescending when we speak to those who are younger? Do we listen, and further, do we understand when younger co-workers speak? Or are we riding roughshod over their feelings, suggestions and rights to contribute to and learn from the business in a meaningful way?

There are so many nuances in workplace communication. How do you maintain the balance between friendly and too personal or professional and standoffish? Share your thoughts on the Talent Management network.

China Bans Facebook?

By Kellye Whitney on 07-07-2009

China recently instituted a countrywide ban on Facebook and Twitter.

I was shocked that something so pervasive has already been labeled not a nuisance — as many technological innovations are often called while everyone gets used to them — but dangerous.

Considering talent managers and other executives are currently trying to figure out how to use the plethora of information available via social networking sites for organizational gain, and China is listed by any number of reputable sources as an emerging force in the global marketplace, such a definitive move seems telling.

Has some group already decided there can be no policing of such a system, thus eliminating it entirely? Further, what are the workplace implications of a free system of communication without easily definable rules, if there are any at all? Who should even decide how such an information bank should be used, or for what purpose?

As Twitter and Facebook mature, we’ll likely watch answers to those types of questions play out in real time. It will be interesting to see which side talent managers — particularly recruiters — fall on, and what the stipulations of use are.

Just Don’t Have the Time

By Kellye Whitney on 06-23-2009

Consider the following fictional scenario:

Thomas has six items on his to-do list for the day, to be completed after he completes a morning project that likely will run until just before lunch. These are not simple-to-execute tasks. Two involve calls to external clients, both of which require pre-call prep work, and one of which was dropped on him by a co-worker not long after he arrived at work. The other items require that Thomas sit down and write a report for his boss as well as copy for one of the company’s external Web sites, and answer e-mails, most of which he’s been putting off because each requires that he read and analyze different attachments.

Thomas will be interrupted myriad times throughout the day, and he must attend an afternoon meeting. It’s also likely that because Thomas is a good worker, someone else will appear needing help or wanting his advice, and Thomas will provide what he can because he understands the value of a strong, collaborative team. He figures if he makes time for his co-workers now they will be willing to reciprocate later, and he’s probably right.

Thomas also has to get out to his mother’s after work. Elderly and living alone, she needs his help lifting heavy items in preparation for workmen scheduled to begin a home repair project the next day. Thomas mother lives 40 minutes away, and he’ll have to make his way to her after 6:30 p.m. since his commute home from the office takes more than an hour.

Now, the details outlined in this sketch aren’t surprising. There are literally millions of workers around the world who face similar scenarios every working day. Further, talent managers are aware their direct reports are overloaded and struggling to find balance between work and a personal life. But there are no easy solutions when the problem is there’s just not enough time to do all that should be done each day.

What can talent managers do to ease the burden? Many are being more lenient, letting things slide when possible and offering flex time and summer hours even when workforce resources are stretched thin.

What are you doing to ease the stress on your workforce? Discuss how you make time for critical job tasks in the Talent Management Network.

Wrong From the Start

By Kellye Whitney on 06-09-2009

An interesting pitch came through my inbox this week, titled The Myth of the “Turnaround Leader” — Micro-leaders, Not Micromanagers, Needed.

Stephen Miles, a managing partner of Heidrick & Struggles, made a compelling case for a new kind of CEO. Essentially, Miles said many companies have gotten the wrong idea about what it takes to make it through today’s financial crisis. What’s needed is not a turnaround leader, but a CEO with a “maniacal focus on operational excellence.

“They are not flying around at 50,000 feet, jetting to various speaking engagements. They are on-the-ground running ‘lean and mean’ organizations and don’t need a crisis to take them there,” Miles said.

I agree and would take the case a step further, stretching the need for micro-leaders beyond the CEO title to every leader, especially talent leaders.

A truly visionary talent leader understands that strategies should already have been in place to handle the recession before it hit. Organizational talent processes should have been strong enough that once business circumstances changed and the marketplace went on a roller-coaster ride, all that was needed were minor adjustments. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case with the average organization.

Most companies have been scrambling to adjust, and these companies obviously were not running lean and mean to begin with if their first responses to economic hardship were to execute often substantial workforce restructuring, layoffs and pay and other benefit reductions.

There is a saying, “A crisis brings out the best and the worst in every member of a family.” That’s not an exact rendition, but the meaning is clear: if things are right to begin with, when things go wrong we can handle them better.

Pay Attention

By Kellye Whitney on 06-02-2009

In celebrity-land it’s easy to get attention -- the lens is already cocked and focused right on the talent, whether they want the attention or not.

Case in point, at the recent Spike TV awards actors Jamie Foxx and Halle Berry shared a “moment” onstage that has been seen ’round the world thanks to extension media coverage and the ever ready and in the know YouTube Web site. Whether they were joking, serious or deliberately trying to grab the spotlight, any and everyone saw them kiss, grab and seemingly have a great time together.

In the more traditional workplace or office, talent may go unrecognized without senior managers’ focused efforts to pay attention to and recognize the best employees. In the past few weeks a variety of different surveys, studies and perspectives on engagement and lack thereof as a result of the economy has crossed my desk, and the consensus is: having your head down, dealing with a backlog of economically stimulated work is no excuse to neglect the top performers in your organization -- even during the recession.

Further, the medium performers deserve attention too, as they may be an untapped, readily accessible source of talent organizations aren’t making the best use of.

It’s up to the talent manager to find the time to recognize key employees and ensure they’re motivated and performing to the best of their abilities. How they’ll do that consistently and effectively while operating with skeleton crews under tense and often strained circumstances I wish I knew.

Obama Sure Can Pick ’Em

By Kellye Whitney on 05-26-2009

Obama seems determined to create the most diverse cabinet/government — or national employee base — in history. You might even call him a very savvy talent leader.

According to an article released today on Yahoo, his latest Supreme Court appointment, federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, would be the first Hispanic in history to wear the robes of a justice. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court).

Obama has made a habit of choosing diverse candidates for cabinet and other positions since he took office. But what is notable here is not necessarily the candidate’s diverse characteristics but her qualifications. The article said:

“Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.”

The article also pointed out that, “Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.” Essentially, Obama is choosing the most qualified candidate from a large, ready-to-be-tapped pool of potential applicants.

Sotomayor was confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, an appointment that was delayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. The article said, “Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.

“Now, more than a decade later, Sotomayor possesses credentials Sessions said he wanted in a pick for the high court — years of experience on the bench.”

So, it’s not that Sotomayor is the right woman for the job, or that her potential appointment will make her the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court bench. It’s that she’s likely right for the job, period.

A Different Kind of Age Discrimination

By Kellye Whitney on 05-22-2009

Employees in their 20s and 30s are the first ones to get laid off, according to an article released this week by The Wall Street Journal. (http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107099/With-Jobs-Scarce-Age-Becomes-an-Issue)

Apparently, employers looking to avoid age-discrimination lawsuits are adopting a "last one in, first one out" policy to cut payroll numbers. The article said, “in some cases, young, childless professionals say they feel they're being targeted in layoffs, while employees who have families to support are given special consideration.”

Further, “While no age group is exempt from layoffs, younger workers seem to be shouldering a larger percentage of the burden, according to recent Labor Department figures. The unemployment rate for those between the ages of 25 and 34 was 9.6% in April 2009, up from 4.9% a year earlier. For those ages 55 and older, the unemployment rate was 6.2% in April 2009, compared with 3.3% a year earlier.”
We live in a litigious society, so I understand talent managers’ dilemma. I can even understand the rationale behind this kind of behavior, but it’s a bit short sighted.
Hopefully, when the layoff mandate comes down from the top, most talent managers are looking at performance and organizational contribution as much as any other, but this particular article hardly mentioned it at all. Instead, the piece talked about the subjective ways that layoff decisions were made.

For instance, consider this portion of the article: “Svetlana Gelman, 24, worked in the marketing department of a law firm until December when she was laid off. She feels strongly that her age and the fact that she doesn't have a family to support put her at greater risk before the layoff. Ms. Gelman says she was competing head-to-head with another employee with a child, who was hired a few months after Ms. Gelman and often would use her sacrifices as a parent to tout her dedication to the firm. ‘The person was very tactical, she would bring the child in, spoke about him all the time and would say things like “My child is sick but I'm still here,”’ says Ms. Gelman.

“And as work became more scarce and layoffs loomed, Ms. Gelman says she was let go while her colleague remained, despite the fact that Ms. Gelman earned less and often worked longer hours because of her co-worker's child-care responsibilities.”

No one ever said life, or work, was always fair, but when gamesmanship, political maneuvering and cost cutting take precedence over work commitment and discretionary effort, that’s something to think about.

The Image Doctor

By Kellye Whitney on 05-19-2009

Yahoo ran a lead story today about R&B singer Maxwell, who has just come back on the music scene after an eight year hiatus. (http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/hiphopmediatraining/112835/can-maxwell-make-a-comeback-after-8-years/)

And apparently that is not as newsworthy as his new haircut. Known for a large wavy afro and sexy, playboy type clothing Maxwell is now clean cut and conservatively dressed. The writer queried whether or not this new image would taint fans’ appreciation for the singer.

As a fan, I can say unequivocally, no. The voice is as powerful and beautiful as ever, and having cut my own long natural hair and permed it under pressure from various sources, I can sympathize with the rather silly scrutiny Maxwell is now suffering from.

Now, 35, the singer likely has matured (he said openly that was part of the reason he took such a long break, to grow up), but I wonder if something this superficial will actually influence the way others view him.

In my case, my head full of natural curls was viewed by many in my personal life as a potential deterrent for my success on the job. It’s funny, though. While I have had one or two work-related incidents about my hair, mostly touching without permission (rude) and ridiculous comments intended as jokes (rude and unnecessary), these happened outside my office and did not involve my immediate supervisors. To this day I never heard a negative word about my appearance from anyone on my job. Of course, people may be keeping their opinions to themselves, (thank you very much), but I have collected many compliments on hair, clothes, shoes and the like.

Eventually I did knuckle under constant pressure, and I permed my hair straight to be what some considered more approachable and not potentially stand in my own way careerwise. But then I realized something. I don’t want permed hair. I like it. I have nice hair permed or natural, but I prefer my natural hair. And quite honestly, if that’s ever the reason I don’t get a job or a promotion, I’ll just have to deal with it.

As long as I’m clean and neatly presented without outlandish accoutrements or other attention grabbing characteristics that take away from my work or potentially offend a client, if ever the way my hair comes out of my head naturally is worrisome or problematic, it likely will be time to seek alternative employment.

Of course Maxwell has a bit more freedom as a singer to express himself or look a certain way. Freedom many executives or others that work in corporate America, for instance, may not have. But really, what image doctor are we using for a standard today and why? As long as clients and other external stakeholders are happy I imagine the savvy talent manager is more interested in quality of work product anyway.

What do you think?

The Ostrich Tale

By Kellye Whitney on 05-12-2009

You can hardly turn a full circle without running into someone who has been affected by the economy. But I heard a story third-hand recently that surprised me.

While commuting to work I listened to two women discussing their employment situations. The main speaker told her companion she’d recently given notice, having secured a new, better position, and that her supervisor was sincerely shocked to receive her letter of resignation.

Apparently this particular talent manager had no idea she was unhappy, let alone looking for a new position.

The woman said when the manager asked her why she was leaving she was momentarily speechless, and ultimately was too angry to respond.

She said something like, “He actually didn’t notice that half the office trudges around like zombies, leaves right on the stroke of five and that no one laughs or has fun the way we used to.”

Further, this oblivious manager hadn’t noticed that one of his high performers was disengaged and disgruntled. Apparently there had been several departmental and company-wide changes, most of which due to the economy, that didn’t sit well with the staff. But managers either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and productivity and retention efforts were suffering as a result.

Burying one’s head in the sand is a common avoidance technique when things get tough, but it’s obviously not a smart one for talent managers to use. Had that woman on the train’s supervisor paid more attention to her, she might have stayed.

Let’s Look Long Term

By Kellye Whitney on 05-08-2009

For the past six months, most of the talk around the Talent Management office has centered on how the economy affects talent managers’ work. We’ve dissected myriad solutions and angles, but the AP reports that layoffs are slowing, there seems to be an associated shift in the hot topic. Now the focus is, "OK, we’ve stabilized, somewhat. What can we do to prepare for the economic rebound?"

This revised conversation makes sense. The economy won’t be down forever, and when it rebounds, organizations need to have been smart about not only how to operate in survival mode but how to prepare for economic growth.

How will the talent landscape change? What will sourcing look like? What role will technology play in the new landscape? What trends will emerge? What will talent look like? What will benefits and compensation or performance management look like, and certainly, what skills will be in demand to propel organizations forward in the global marketplace?

These questions and dozens more likely are already swirling in senior talent leaders’ minds, and they should. A short-term talent view is necessary right now because bottom line issues must be dealt with. But a long-term talent management view is also necessary. What strategies will talent leaders employ, and how will they execute them to prepare and prosper for when times get better?

Talent Organization Stress Test

By Kellye Whitney on 05-05-2009

Bank stress tests are all over the news today, as partial results from many financial institutions were revealed (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0904/gallery.stress_test/index.html).

It was interesting that some of the companies listed in the aforementioned CNNMoney.com piece turned a profit in 2008, but apparently not enough of a profit to prevent their stock prices from tumbling.

I wonder what a similar test for the average organization’s talent department would look like? If we drew a parallel between assets, talent and stock performance, the center variable likely would be the differentiating factor, as it is one of the only resources senior leaders have even a modicum of control over.

Even in the midst of record layoffs, hiring freezes and compensation deficits across industries, the talent manager can leverage the workforce to create a competitive advantage. But like a bank, that manager must systemically test his or her talent’s strength under pressure. It would be critical to gauge employee engagement, productivity and skill levels, as well as business metrics related to operations, sales or marketing.

The article said the actual results for the bank would not be revealed until May 7th. But savvy talent leaders know the time for metrics and a tight talent focus is now, was yesterday and will always be tomorrow.

Surveys and Rewards

By Kellye Whitney on 05-01-2009

I’ve seen two things come across my desk multiple times this past week — research on employee surveys and information on how to engage employees with intangible rewards.

I see a clear connection between the two. On one hand, it is critical that senior talent leaders make the best use of employee survey tools. Engagement levels are at all time lows thanks to the economy. On the other hand, reward dollars, and budgets for other compensation-related vehicles, have substantially dried up or disappeared all together, which means talent managers are forced to be creative in their methods to engage an extremely disengaged workforce.

What if talent leaders used survey tools to ask employees what exactly their organizations could do to make them feel better about coming to work, in lieu of the obvious bonuses and the like? It’s not a fly-me-to-the-moon uber novel idea, but I think it has merit. It’s likely employees will be able to come up with one or two creative suggestions that can boost their morale and consequently, their organizations’ productivity. And many may not cost the organization a thing.

The Right Fit

By Kellye Whitney on 04-28-2009

A friend of mine who’s currently in the job market told me about an interview she went on recently.

Now, my friend is in the enviable position of not having to work. She chooses to do so. Thus, when she was laid off from her previous position she re-entered the job market without a lot of the angst and desperation those of us without a cushion feel when we know bill-paying day is approaching.

The new position required that she drive to work. Not exactly what she wanted, but the company had flex hours so she could beat the worst of rush hour traffic, and after six months she would be eligible to telecommute one day per week.

The new position also offered a host of benefits her old job did not have including one day off per month to volunteer, transportation and tuition reimbursement, and the aforementioned flexible schedule and telecommuting options.

She said the interview went fine. The benefits were great, and the salary range the company was offering was a definite step up from what she was making.

Well, I asked, if they offer you the job will you take it? No, she replied. The culture is not right for me.

Had my friend been the average job seeker who needed to work to pay bills, and was offered a position with this company she likely would have said yes, despite the cultural misalignment. Then, when the economy improved, she’d have jumped ship to a sunnier locale.

I’ve read about this scenario over and over, and talent managers be warned: You are not the only one in the workplace looking for the right fit. Benefits are great, competitive salary is great, flexible work options are fabulous, but if your culture isn’t right, your retention rates will likely show it once the economy improves.

Career Choices Changing

By Mike Prokopeak on 04-24-2009

It’s been said so much over the last few months, it’s almost a clichĂ©. Times they are a-changin’. But the evidence continues to pile up, the economic recession of 2008-2009 is causing significant, and sometimes painful, change in our lives.

Almost overnight, the average household savings rate, for years lodged in negative territory as consumers financed consumer purchases with high interest rate credit cards or equity loans on their homes, spiked north into positive territory. More and more people are now saving their paychecks and paying down their debts.

Now, with graduation around the corner, it looks like change is coming to students’ career expectations and choices. Some analysts and college experts see a seismic shift in the career choices for talented students. More and more, college graduates are forgoing formerly high flying careers in finance for public service. A recent article in the New York Times spells out the burgeoning trend. (www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12lohr.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)

Here’s a quote from one expert cited in the article: “In choosing careers, young people look for signals from society, and Wall Street will no longer pull the talent that it did for so many years,” Richard Freeman, director of the labor studies program at the National Bureau of Economic Research. “We have a great experiment before us.”
Talent managers are smack in the middle of that great experiment. It may be time to re-examine recruitment and retention policies, and prepare for a long-term shift in the flow of talent.

Miss California

By Kellye Whitney on 04-21-2009

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528?nc

Some say Miss California’s honest answer to a question about gay marriage lost her the Miss USA 2009 crown this past weekend. When asked if all states should follow Vermont’s lead and legalize same sex marriage, Miss California Carrie Prejean replied, “
in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

I’m not here to debate the same sex marriage legislation. But there is an interesting parallel between Prejean’s honest answer and the talent manager’s situation in the average organization.

Faced with budget cuts, demands to streamline and find efficiencies with already bare bones staff, how can a talent executive honestly say to other senior management, “Hey, we can’t afford to cut any more staff or we risk injuring the organization long term”? Or, how can the talent leader say to other senior leaders, “Our policy of across the board pay increases is not based on accepted and proven pay-for-performance models that produce more value add for the company”?

Times are tough, and leaders are perhaps more sensitive now than at other times to criticism or opinions and suggestions that run contrary to established or preferable fixes.

Is it worth it for the talent leader to be brave and speak his or her truth? Given the ongoing discussion and fairly established desire by senior talent leaders to take on a more strategic role within their organizations, I think so.

That’s where metrics come in. Hard data can provide the validation and support senior talent leaders need to give their opinions legs. And company-specific facts when combined with reputable research can act as the strategic levers HR executives require to successfully make the business case for their efforts.

Standards of Living in China

By Kellye Whitney on 04-14-2009

China has released its first human rights action plan, according to a story released yesterday by Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_re_as/as_china_human_rights).

The country has pledged to improve the treatment of minorities, to do more to prevent detainees from being tortured, and efforts to raise living standards will be a central goal.

The article said, “China has been criticized by other governments, the United Nations and activists for aggressively promoting economic reform over the past few decades while falling short on basic human rights such as freedom of speech, religion and the right to a fair trial.

“The government responds to such criticism by pointing to its accomplishments in improving the lot of hundreds of millions of people.”

Now, let’s think of China as a big, powerful, global organization. It’s not a big stretch, so bear with me. If the organization undertook a similar employee rights action plan, it likely would do some or all of the following:

Give employees raises or other perks to indicate they are valued: verbal praise, time off for successful projects or to compensate for some other lack, flexible work schedules and more.

Ensure their work environments are pleasant and contain all of the tools needed to succeed. This may include hiring additional staff, which is a tough considering the state of the market for most businesses that are simply trying to operate profitably and successfully. But leveraging other economies, not to mention the productivity and overall happiness of a workforce that is not overloaded and stressed out, might make it a worthwhile investment.

Enable managers to, within a common, carefully constructed and mutually benefit-motivated organizational structure, exercise some flexibility in how they run their units or departments, and focus on treating employees with respect. Even if that meant being tough on, or getting rid of, employees who create problems for the organization and enrolling managers in classes to teach them how to communicate more effectively with direct reports.

China’s plan reads: "While respecting the universal principles of human rights, the Chinese government, in the light of the basic realities of China, gives priority to the protection of the people's rights to subsistence and development."

According to the article, “The two-year plan promises the communist government will do more to 
 boost the overall living standard of minorities, women, the unemployed and the disabled
 a central tenet of its policy remains ensuring Chinese people have the right to make money.”

If only all organizations were concerned about employees’ development, their right to make money, human rights and boosting overall living standards. It certainly wouldn’t be easy. But I have a feeling from retention/employer branding and productivity and innovation considerations, the juice might be worth the squeeze.

The Element of Surprise

By Kellye Whitney on 04-07-2009

President Obama made a surprise visit to Iraq today.

An AP White House correspondent reported that he told troops: "You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement. It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. They need to take responsibility for their country."

Obviously security played a role in the surprise nature of the president’s visit to Iraq, but that element of surprise has obvious benefits outside war zones and presidential agendas. In the workplace it can lift spirits, as it did for the troops who heard the president’s words and got to shake his hand, and it can help to promote long-term engagement and uncover areas of interest or those in need of correction.

How often do you, the senior talent leader in your organization, drop in unexpectedly to visit your direct reports? When was the last time you visited various department heads or scheduled brief meetings to discuss day to day operations and how the talent/HR function can ease or facilitate those?

The object here is not to catch someone slipping, although that can happen, and some people may react poorly. But it need not be a bad thing if a surprise visit uncovers a problem that can be fixed before it creates a more serious workplace or business issue. The object is to see the real deal, the day-to-day operations and any associated issues or problems that don’t make it into scheduled meetings, reports or briefings. The object is to observe employee and team interactions and to connect on a personal level with the people who make the business run, and let them know their work and their opinions are valued.

Et Tu, CFO?

By Mike Prokopeak on 04-03-2009

Our dirty little secret is out: HR people don’t get analytics.

According to an article on CFO.com (http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/13270251), Rutgers University’s Richard Beatty recently told a gathering of the country’s top financial executives the corporate HR profession has little or no relevance to the organization’s success.

Thanks, Richard. That’s the last thing we want the person who holds the corporate purse strings to think.

But not wanting it to be told and not believing it’s true are different things. There are some painful truths in the article, including that HR people tend to conflate satisfaction and engagement with higher performance, and that we focus on fixing bad performers rather than spending time and resources on developing top performers.

While I’d take issue with aspects of his arguments, I can’t argue with Beatty’s broader point: The work of analyzing the workforce and finding, developing and managing the organization’s strategic talent needs to rest with someone who gets the business, and not just the people. It’s an incredible opportunity for talent managers, but one that will pass them by if they don’t broaden their view and stretch their conception of the HR role.

Finding Joy in Work

By Kellye Whitney on 03-31-2009

There may not be as much interest in this blog as in one titled “10 Surefire Ways to Get a Talent Management Job During the Recession,” but given the plethora of information that has run across my desk recently about lack of engagement and motivation, what follows may strike a chord for some. http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-ten_ways_to_know_it_s_time_to_go-696

While surfing the 'Net I ran across an article titled “Ten Ways to Know It's Time to Go: A Job-Change Checklist.”

If you’re like me, you’ve likely been forced to listen to more than one recessionary-job-type conversation: so and so was laid off, my supervisor has been a bear lately, or a personal non-favorite, I’m so sick of that job I don’t know what to do.

Three items on the list struck me more than others. My comments follow.

You cannot muster enthusiasm for anything related to work — other than your paycheck — This is a truly horrible feeling. I’m lucky that after more than five years I still very much enjoy my job, but like anyone I have bad moments. When they pop up I handle those less critical job tasks that don’t require much strategic thinking. It’s a kind of perverse, trial by fire thing. After filing a pile of papers or going through a stack of press releases, I’m usually eager to return to those tougher tasks that require a bit more of the old brain power.

You’re constantly putting off until tomorrow what you could (and should) do today. When you do actually commit to doing your work, you feel resentful - This type of activity can make an already unpalatable situation even worse. Creating stress for yourself can lead to mistakes, aggravation, and if you make enough of them, you may join the ranks of the unemployed. At which point you will likely think, damn. I didn’t know when I had it good!

You have no professional goals related to your job, and you have a hard time even making some up at your obligatory performance review - Sometimes you have to make your own joy. There’s no other way to say it. As a talent leader you set policy, procedure and perhaps more importantly in the current economic climate, you set tone. You are a leader. If your direct reports and employees see you making the very best of a bad or perhaps not ideal situation, they are more apt to do the same. Reminding yourself that things could be worse is one thing, but actively seeking out those things that bring you, or brought you, joy in your position can be helpful if you sincerely want to recapture those feelings. Otherwise, it might be best to start looking for another opportunity, before you have to.

Be Careful What You Ask For

By Mike Prokopeak on 03-27-2009

When you ask for employee input into decision making, be sure you are prepared for the consequences. It won’t always go the way you planned.

NASA learned a hard lesson this week. The space agency ran a contest to name the not so romantically dubbed Node 3, a connecting module being added to the international space station. The agency suggested the name “Serenity” to match the names of other modules, Unity, Harmony and Destiny.

But comedian Stephen Colbert, host of the Comedy Central show “The Colbert Report,” got wind of the naming contest and enlisted his legions of fans to take part in the naming contest. They responded — to the tune of 230,539 votes to name the station annex “Colbert.” That bested NASA’s name choice by more than 40,000 votes and made Colbert the winner.

A NASA spokesman said the agency reserves the right to select the name the agency sees most fit, and a final decision won’t be made until next month. Regardless of how it turns out, it’s safe to say that the naming contest didn’t quite turn out the way NASA planned.

There’s a lesson for talent managers here: In light of turbulent economic conditions and dizzying organizational changes, many of us are actively engaging the workforce in decision making as a way to keep them involved, motivated and feeling positive about their work. But if we don’t really mean it, or aren’t willing to follow through on the decisions of the group, we can look foolish, at best, and untrustworthy, at worst.

Fashion and Talent

By Kellye Whitney on 03-24-2009

I love fashion magazines. Flipping through them is like going window shopping — only more comfortable and less expensive. Lately, however, almost every publication I’ve read has talked about one thing: how the recession is affecting the fashion industry.

Essentially, it boils down to this: Now that times are tight, it’s not in good taste to spend excessively. Rather than follow trends, the fashion conscious are focusing instead on selecting quality pieces that will last forever. These pieces must be luxurious enough to make the wearer look and feel fabulous, but also must be able to do double — preferably infinite — duty; they must be able to be worn over and over again.

If you feel as though you’ve simply got to have a $6,000 metallic gold bolero jacket, think about it carefully. Evaluate it with multiple outfits, both high-end (such as evening wear) and low-end (such as jeans and a t-shirt). If you can afford it, answer your heart’s call and get it. Then wear it to shreds.

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if talent managers thought of their best employees that way? Making that initial, perhaps sizable investment upfront in order to reap multiple benefits on the back end? That investment might include development options such as tuition assistance or stretch assignments, or an earned pay-for-performance bonus or raise — even when there’s a freeze on companywide activity of that sort.

Now that would be seriously talent conscious.

Green Is Good

By Mike Prokopeak on 03-20-2009

You wouldn’t know it from the dire economic news that seems to be in constant media rotation recently, but major American companies are rich.

According to recent article in the March 9 issue of BusinessWeek, many big corporations have amassed “heaps” of cash recently. Among others, GE added $33.6 billion in the last quarter, giving it a total of $50.2 billion. Verizon and Cisco added $8.6 billion and $6.8 billion respectively to their hoards.

While the broad economic downturn has hit stock valuations on the S&P 500 pretty hard, some major companies are proactively working to address their long-term health during the recession. According to the article, a GE spokesman said the company is hoarding cash to establish the security of the company in the tumultuous economic environment.

Others are acting more aggressively. Cisco, for one, may be looking to acquire companies, and Apple, which used the last downturn in 2001 to capture the personal media player market with the iPod breakthrough, is reported to use the same game plan this downturn: invest in opportunities and position the company for explosive growth when the economy snaps out of its decline.

What are the talent implications? There’s an opportunity here for talent managers. While many companies are cutting staff and curtailing spending for the short term, they’re also focusing on the key priorities, and talent, that will lead to innovation. Take a look at your company’s balance sheet and see what you can do to align talent with the business goals.

Bonuses Should Be Deserved

By Kellye Whitney on 03-17-2009

Yesterday, President Obama said he plans to try and stop insurance provider AIG (American International Group) from paying out more than $165 million in executive bonuses.

In an Associated Press article, the President said, "I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy) Especially since AIG has received more than $170 billion in federal bailout funds.

The President’s administration will try to set limits on the next $30 billion installment in taxpayers' money for AIG and has directed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to see if there is a way to retrieve or stop the bonus money from being distributed.

I’m not saying no AIG executive deserved to get a bonus. I’m sure there are many who deserve something for the efforts they’ve expended despite the company’s overall situation. But at some point, leaders need to be smart, not only with money and image/reputation but with their employees.

It just doesn’t look good when there were no Christmas bonuses or raises and the top leaders get sizable rewards. Sure they led the company, but most companies these days aren’t doing that hot, which means whether the economy impacted business or not, there were some faulty moves made by management.

Further, without the employees, there is no one to lead. Essentially, without employees there is no business, and in times like these, it pays to think where business begins and ends. Businesses will not succeed without effective leadership, it’s true. But without the front line, senior management — unless they plan to execute double work duty — is essentially worthless.

Innovation’s Nation

By Mike Prokopeak on 03-13-2009

At last month’s Talent Management Strategies conference in California, the theme for the event was Innovation to Impact. When we sat down to plan out the conference program in early 2008, a full year before the event kicked off, we had no idea what would happen with the global economy starting in the fall of 2009. But in choosing the innovation theme, we hit on something that turned out to be very timely.

During a severe economic downturn such as the one we’re in now, the instinct is to cut back and hunker down. While being conscious of cost is important, it’s also important that organizations continue to invest in targeted ways, especially in innovation. And what is more critical to developing innovative new products and services than talent?

Out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, major companies were born or grown. The list includes IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Procter & Gamble, among others. Out of the recession of the 1980s, Microsoft developed new computer technology that led to its growth. After the IT bubble burst in 2001, Apple positioned itself to dominate the consumer technology segment with its iconic iPod. The stories are many.

It’s important for talent managers to be advocates and avenues for the talent that will lead to innovation, and to bring the issue to the table when they feel cuts go too deep or are too short-sighted.

There’s an interesting article in the April issue of Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/chinese-innovation) about how the current recession stands to hit China, the world’s largest manufacturer, hardest of all, just as the Great Depression nailed the United States the hardest.

But like America did back then, China has the opportunity to use the downturn to spur innovation that will lead to long-term gains, just as American companies laid the foundation for decades of long-term growth after the Depression. The Atlantic’s James Fallows says that’s bad news for Americans, unless American companies make innovation a priority, too.

Perception: More Important Than Reality?

By Kellye Whitney on 03-10-2009

A headline caught my eye today: “U.S. says Chinese vessels harassed Navy ship. The article reads: “A Defense Department statement said the Chinese vessels ‘shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity’ to the USS Impeccable, which was conducting routine operations in international waters 75 miles south of Hainan Island.” And later in the article Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "We will be certainly letting the Chinese officials know of our displeasure with respect to this careless and reckless, unprofessional ... maneuver."

It’s a tough time in the world right now, and I wasn’t there to ascertain for myself whether these ships dancing close together could be construed as dangerous or aggressive, but I know certain actions in the workplace can.

Managers have to be incredibly careful how they say things to employees, lest they be taken the wrong way. Of course, some people will take things the wrong way no matter how nicely or carefully they’re phrased. Which introduces an interesting question: outside of what’s necessary to avoid potential litigation, how careful should a talent manager have to be when disciplining, delivering feedback or otherwise engaging an employee?

The economy has naturally made employees and managers more sensitive. No matter how diligently we work, it’s not always possible to completely separate personal concerns from career responsibilities. But where can the talent manager cross the line or separate an employee’s hypersensitivity from what they should be doing to promote workplace harmony and productivity? Where do you?

It’s perhaps not the same as two ships “harassing” each other, but workplace strife, or even hurt feelings, can certainly have significant impact on performance and culture.

Is Talent Management No Longer Important?

By Mike Prokopeak on 03-06-2009

I just read the surprising results from a recent survey that indicates business leaders no longer see talent management as one of their critical challenges.

Results of the Personnel Decisions International Pulse on Leaders survey released last week show that leaders rank the financial pressures created by the current economy as their toughest current challenge. No argument from me on that point. We’re all being challenged, personally and professionally, by the recession.

But the survey also indicates that talent management dropped to last on the list of eight business issues they ranked. The same survey last year indicated that talent management was their No. 2 challenge. Just 5 percent of executives from the 500 global organizations surveyed this year said “loss of leaders in key areas and insufficient talent to quickly adapt to change” were critical issues.

Granted, the survey focuses specifically on the availability of talent, and in a time of mounting job losses, there’s an abundance of available talent. But still, core talent management issues, so important just a year ago, are practically no longer even on the radar of these leaders? What a difference a year makes.

This finding illustrates two things:

1. Despite all our efforts, talent management still is not aligned to business priorities. If it were, these business leaders would see it is a critical component of their ability to meet the challenges facing their organization this year, and likely the next. Organizations’ ability to survive, and ultimately thrive, is intricately tied to their ability to redeploy and leverage talent.

2. Talent managers need to shift their priorities. The “war for talent” is on hiatus, and we need to turn our attention to our internal talent pools, find ways to engage workers, develop them and increase productivity without burnout.

At last week’s Talent Management Magazine Strategies conference in California, many of the speakers underscored that second point. We’re all facing serious challenges right now, and some of our organizations might not make it through.

But those that do will emerge stronger if they actively engage their talent, diligently align their talent management strategies to business priorities, and continue to put people first, even when business priorities come to the fore.

And I Thought It Was Just Me

By Kellye Whitney on 03-03-2009

I almost yawned my head off riding into work on the train Monday. As I shuffled into the office and powered up my computer I vowed to get more sleep: Thou will not stay up past 10:30 during the week. But apparently I’m not alone. According to a new poll from HealthDay News almost a third of all Americans are unable to get a good night's sleep because they're worrying about the economy, their jobs or their money.

At this point in the game the economy is no longer new news, but more information about the physical and emotional repercussions is surfacing each day. By sheer force of will I’ve managed not to worry excessively about rising costs, my curtailed savings plans, absentee bonuses and raises and such. Instead, I ride the elevator up to the office and console myself with very practical thoughts like, look at that empty office. Glad it’s not me. Wow, the number of unemployed passed 5 million. Glad I’m not one of them.

It’s easy to worry, and even easier for someone else to tell you not to. I’m no psychologist, and even if I was, everyone’s situation is different, so there likely is no one-size-fits-all, make-you-feel-more-at-easy-about-having-less-money-and-potentially-being-laid-off-at-any-moment. What does help me get to sleep at night, when I finally get in the bed, is realizing I’m not alone, and things could in fact be much worse.

That’s not exactly a revelation, and it’s certainly no belly buster pick me up, but right now, what is?

Tell Me Lies

By Kellye Whitney on 02-17-2009

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris is having a tough time — keeping his story straight.

It seems like every time you click on a news article, he’s offering a different tidbit or angle to explain his association with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Personally, this type of half in, half out storytelling seems to scream dishonesty, and like many in Illinois, I’m waiting for the real truth to come out before making a decision on whether this person is fit to act as a U.S. senator.

Ethical considerations are likely top of mind for many talent leaders whether they work in government, corporate America or academic circles, with good reason.

What’s happening in current events has a significant impact on what happens to employees in the workplace, whether the connections are direct — pending labor legislation, for instance — or indirect — feelings of disengagement as a result of the worsening economy.

It’s critical that senior leaders exemplify honesty and integrity, and a big part of that is the way these leaders communicate. Do they communicate? If so, how? Directly via town hall meetings, indirectly via email, internal newsletter, or do they count on talent managers to spread the good or bad word about the company’s latest activities?

As an employee I recommend a blended approach of all of the above. Senior leaders’ activities have an impact on how I work and how much or how hard I work. What do you think?

What are the best ways for senior leaders to communicate with employees? What’s the value?

Happy Birthday

By Mike Prokopeak on 02-12-2009

Were he possessed of the longevity of Methuselah, naturalist Charles Darwin would have turned 200 today. His theory of natural selection — that all species evolved from a common ancestor and that variation among species resulted from adaptation to the environment — fundamentally changed science.

Interestingly, Darwin shares the same birthday, February 12, 1809, with one of the United States’ most significant historical figures — Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s decisions as the 16th president of the United States — to emancipate slaves and fight a civil war — fundamentally changed the course of American history.

Supposing either would be at all interested in our current economy, I wonder what they would think?

Would Darwin argue that natural selection, which he applied to life sciences, can also be applied to the economy? Should we allow the same evolutionary processes of selection — old species dying out and new ones being born — to play out without interference in the business world? Would Lincoln see the financial crisis in the same way that we do and advocate for strong and dramatic leadership action to address it?

Common Sense Talent Management

By Kellye Whitney on 02-10-2009

The current economy seems to have heralded a return to common sense, basic talent management strategy if you will. Whether it’s all talent leaders can afford to execute right now, or whether they’ve realized there was no need to stray so far from the fold to begin with isn’t certain. But my theory seemed to be confirmed when I ran across an article from CNNmoney.com last week that discussed strategies of nine companies that as of mid-January this year have not laid off a single employee (http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/106534/No-Layoffs-Ever).

Consider the Nugget Market grocery store chain. Apparently, when Nugget anticipates it will need fewer workers, it stops replacing employees who leave voluntarily. And, to alleviate employee gaps, store locations within 15 miles of each other share staff, all of whom are cross-trained so that: “A deli clerk may also work as a bagger, allowing for more work hours, and still get the (higher) deli pay rate.”

The article also stated supplemental insurance provider Aflac has never had a layoff. I suppose there’s no need. The company keeps a close eye on its budget and listens to employee suggestions or "Bright Ideas," which have helped keep it on solid good financial ground. The article said Aflac has experienced double-digit sales growth each year since Dan Amos became CEO in 1990.

Some of these bright ideas include telecommuting and flex schedules, and four unnamed, recently approved projects are expected to save the company $3 million annually.

There’s nothing fancy about these talent strategies — cross training employees to build their skills and potential contributions to the organization, soliciting and implementing employee ideas for organizational gain &mdash yet their benefits are obvious.

It just goes to show sometimes the smartest solutions can be the simplest.

Credibility and Taxes

By Mike Prokopeak on 02-05-2009

Two weeks ago, I blogged about President Obama’s nomination of the country’s first chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer. Well, news broke this week that she’s withdrawn her nomination in light of taxes she neglected to pay.

What’s with all the tax issues dogging the president’s nominees for high level administration posts? First Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then Health and Human Services appointee Tom Daschle and now Killefer. I know honest mistakes happen, but this is getting a little absurd.)

According to an AP report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_killefer), Killefer failed to pay an unemployment tax for a member of her household staff and the D.C. government placed a lien of $946.69 on her home. Not a huge sum, but it’s pretty embarrassing when you’ve recently been nominated to be the federal government’s watchdog on spending.

The Obama administration, and the president himself, have acknowledged the problem and admit they’ve made mistakes. But is the highly charged Washington political culture willing to give him a mulligan? As talent managers, we know leadership credibility is critical to employee engagement, retention and performance. But what’s the best way to handle it when that credibility is damaged?

Misery Loves Company

By Mike Prokopeak on 01-29-2009

Organizational cynicism: We’ve all experienced it. Many of us have been the person who incites it. Once it’s there, it breeds and spreads like a virus, infecting everyone who comes into contact with it except those with the kind of sunny disposition that makes them immune.

There’s always been strong anecdotal evidence that employees’ negativity affects their co-workers’ attitudes. A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology confirms it (www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121398432/abstract).

Researchers from JMW Associates, the University of Arkansas-Little Rock and the University of Mississippi tested to see if one worker’s badmouthing would lead their co-workers to be less trustful about the organization and start cracking on the boss, too. The answer: Yep, your cubemate’s attitude just might lead you to engage in more badmouthing yourself.

While it’s likely just confirmation of something we already knew, the study is a useful reminder to talent managers to keep a focus on employee engagement. With the Dow shedding points on a daily basis and job losses continuing to mount, cynicism and distrust are likely on the rise in your organization. Now is the time to take measures to counteract it.

Big Boss Inspired Mania

By Kellye Whitney on 01-27-2009

Multiple information sources I’ve encountered recently point to one general theme with regard to talent and the current economic condition: Now’s the time to hold on to your best employees and find creative, cost-effective ways to engage them. Engagement often begins with effective communication and consistent performance feedback.

Allow me to illustrate that point more graphically. A girlfriend told me a hilarious story recently about how the big boss, in charge of the entire company as opposed to her immediate supervisor, came over to her desk and told her to gather her team and meet in his office. Then he walked away.

Now, my friend wasn’t alarmed. Having worked for the company for several years, she’s no longer intimidated by the big boss’ gruff exterior. In fact, she told me she knew immediately he had good news to share as opposed to bad, but the other members of her team were visibly shaken. And her reassurances did no good.

Ultimately the news was good, but the team’s reaction was telling. What does that type of reaction mean in today’s workplace? Can leaders afford to inspire fear in their employees rather than some other reaction? According to several pieces I’ve read lately, the answer is a resounding, no! For one very important reason: When the economy recovers, employees who’ve been scared too many times will probably seek more congenial work environments.

Have you adjusted your management style to allay stress brought on by the economy?

Politics and Performance

By Mike Prokopeak on 01-22-2009

In his election campaign and again in his inaugural speech on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama promised to usher in a new era of transparency in government spending.

Possibly lost in the historic portent of the moment on Tuesday, was a phrase that has resonance for talent managers. Obama said:

“And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.” (www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/)

Charged with leading up his efforts in this area is Nancy Killefer (www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5064IX20090107), Obama’s nominee for the nation’s first chief performance officer. Killefer has her job cut out for her, with the nation’s budget deficit expected to hit $1.186 trillion in 2009.

While the president’s move is meant to address an economic deficit spiraling out of control, the focus on performance and its relation to the bottom line is nothing new for progressive talent managers. Spending wisely, reforming bad habits — either personal or professional — and creating an efficient, compliant business structure lie at the heart of effective talent management.

Also significant is the recognition of the vital role that trust plays in the relationship between an organization and its leaders. It lies at the heart of engagement and high performance. It’s good to see performance get such a high profile.

Real-Time Economic, Talent Stimulus

By Kellye Whitney on 01-20-2009

With the economy operating in a steadily increasing downward spiral that has many companies closing their doors and others laying off hundreds —
or thousands, depending on their size — of employees, managers are struggling to meet increasingly complex talent and business demands with ever shrinking resource pools.

Hot topics such as motivation, engagement or strategies therein have never been more important. But discussions and theories are one thing. In practice, solutions to execute them in the workplace are likely something else entirely.

Take engagement, for instance. How can talent managers motivate employees if those same employees are forced to look at their former colleagues’ empty desks?

I heard one story where an employee attended the company Christmas party on Friday, and that Monday was let go. No one saw it coming, including the employee, and that Monday when management called a company-wide meeting to address the jitters, confusion and unease that permeated the office, there were lots of questions. I was told it took quite awhile, days in fact, for things in that office to settle down.

It’s understandable. Employees may not understand the nuances of senior leaders’ plans to keep the business afloat. In many cases, these nuances are not communicated. Thus, employees wonder, “Am I next?” and “What am I going to do if it happens to me?”

With those heavyweight concerns weighing down the brain, productivity and performance are bound to suffer.

In good times, when employees suffered some sort of dissatisfaction or angst, talent managers could employ incentives of one kind or another to assuage bad feelings or to re-engage them. But many incentive resource pools have dried up. New development opportunities, which are often used to engage employees as well as sharpen skill sets, may not be an option either, as immediate business concerns absorb employees and talent managers’ energy. And, for many talent managers, current economic conditions meant the holidays and typical January performance review cycles went by without bonuses or raises. Which introduces the question: Now what?

How are you handling real-time efforts to motivate nervous employees? Submit your story or suggestions.