Maybe you've heard. Maybe you have not. But a certain part of the U.S. population is under suspicion lately. They are the unemployed. As reported in The Huffington Post, there is a belief that the unemployed should not be considered applicants for open positions based solely on their employment status. Tim Sackett and Kris Dunn on Fistful of Talent subsequently posted their thoughts here as to why this may occur. As amusing as it was, their points raised some concerns for me that the unemployed can be easily stereotyped based on some poorly constructed assumptions. I'm also concerned these assumptions will cause recruiters to pass on qualified individuals.
Wicked In Thought
The first assumption is that if you are unemployed, you're applying for everything and anything. For recruiters, this is creating an overwhelming number of applicants for one open position. Depending on where you live, the rate of re-employment can be as high as 12 months. An unemployed acquaintance of mine in Pennsylvania who has been networking feverishly trying to find work, reported to me that people she has met lately are typically finding a position after 12 months. If this is true, and if it was me out of work for 12 months, I know that my finances would be feeling the pinch. I would be desperate to do anything. Heck I might even be persuaded to recruit again.
Perhaps this assumption is true but I find it difficult to feel sympathy for the recruiter that receives an enormous number of applicants for one position. It's difficult to have sympathy because you have a job. And if you have 400 resumes to read, then it sounds like you have enough work to do to keep you busy; enough work to keep you employed. Considering that anyone could lose their job at the drop of the hat, recruiters should be grateful there is work for themselves. If you lose your job then you just become one of the 400 resumes being reviewed. I think you'd be wise to quit judging if someone is spamming.
The second assumption is if a resume shows a gap of 12 months between jobs the applicant has done nothing in 12 months except hang out. Imagine you're a generalist in the middle of Pennsylvania. You work in health care. Your company is bought and merging leads to job losses. Since there are not a great deal of jobs for HR Generalists, maybe you need to think about your options before posting just for anything. It requires a scan of the external market and to determine which path to choose: stay in HR or reinvent yourself. After a few weeks of regrouping, now's time to decide. If you decide to stay in the field that is scarce for jobs, the number of jobs to apply for will be few and the rate of re-employment is slow. As far as taking odd jobs for income and to demonstrate you're not lazy is a good idea. But chances are an applicants not going to put irrelevant job experience on a resume. In other words, the resume doesn't show you everything.
Wicked In Deed
If resumes showed you everything, they would reveal the ugly truth behind these two individuals. If either of these two came knocking on my door for a job, I would think twice about letting them in.
First, when my partner and I were in a bagel shop in Boston, we were trying to decide where to sit. A guy sitting by the door was saying hello. The place was busy with people going to work, so I had no idea he was talking to me. When I notice his voice raising and verbally complaining whomever he was talking to was not responding back, I looked over. It was then he pointed out that he was talking to me, and continued to berate us for not being friendly. I studied the guy for a good 30 seconds and I noticed three things (1) he was well-dressed, well-groomed and sitting with a laptop, (2) he had no excuse for his rude behavior, (3) I wondered if he acts like this at his workplace.
Second, when we were boarding the plane from Philly to Boston, we happened to be in front of five guys wearing Phillies hats. They were in Boston for the weekend to see the Phillies play the Red Sox. They were loud and rowdy in the jetway and one of them pushed me from behind. I looked back and he just turned his eyes away. Moments later while in the aisle of the plane making our way to our seats, the same guy pushed me again. This time when I turned around, he said, "you have a problem?" I turned back and just started telling my partner who was in front of me that the guy behind me was pushing me. The guy behind me starts berating me, saying he can hear me and telling me to shut up. Furthermore says he didn't push me, but that if I didn't shut up that he would shove me. The situation never went beyond this. But my thoughts veered toward the WTF and I imagined that this guy probably acts like this at work.
I know it would be ideal if candidates acted like this through a resume. But they don't so recruiters are forced to put their wicked barometers to the test, and find the angels amidst the 400 resumes.
Wicked In Word
Chances are you have been unemployed. Maybe it was a long time ago in a personal galaxy far removed from where you are now. Maybe it was not your fault. But maybe it was. I was fired from a job one time many years ago. Did I deserve it? Without a doubt.
There's no need to go into the gory details as to how it happened or what events led to the job's ultimate ending. The why is more important, and that why was because I was an idiot. When I look back on that day and think, if this was a court of law I would have plead guilty on the grounds of temporary idiocy.
This is not to imply that I'm not an idiot right now, or have not had my share of idiotic moments between then and now. But on that day back in 1986, my idiot barometer hit an all-time record low. Despite that day, I stand before you now as a very employable guy.
After that incident, I know it was difficult to persuade someone that I was worth hiring. I think it's typical to be suspicious when someone loses a job if it's not part of a reduction-in-force. But there's no need to invite this type of wickedness into your workplace. It's not the unemployed that are wicked. It's the suspicion as a generality that is wicked. And printing that the unemployed need not apply in your want ads is the most wicked of all.
Emergency Broadcast System
This Is A Test
This Is Not A Test
I have not tweeted anything for three days. Did you miss me? Did you even notice? Did you think something was wrong? What if I were to extend the three days to four, or to five days? Or a week? Or a month? Would you notice then?
What if I posted no articles on this blog for a month? Would you be inclined to ask, "was there an emergency?" "Or were you depressed?" "Or were you truly that busy?"
I'm going on vacation next month for ten days. If I don't post or tweet will anyone in SocialMediaLand notice?
Lots of questions, yes. And here's another one: why am I asking so many questions?
Fran's Fault
Fran Melmed over at Free Range Communications and I were talking about her upcoming vacation and how she was going to completely disconnect from her social media life during this time. Subsequently, on her blog she writes this, "the bravado, and now the economic uncertainty, that keeps us from taking vacation drives a lot of unhealthy behaviors, beginning with our sustaining a culture that confuses longer hours with better results. for those of us using social media, the endless churn of information instills in us the sense that we need to contribute or we’re forgotten."
I've been a recent convert to the social media lifestyle. I enjoy it. But I know that when I did convert, I had to focus on a balancing act which now includes four parts:
Family
Work life
Social media life
Me
I really don't mind the balancing act. But what I find interesting about them is this: out of the four parts, only social media life is infinite and only turns off when you choose. At work, the shop does close. Your family have their lives. And you will probably need to go to sleep soon. But social media is always on and ready for you to jump in.
Something In The Water
I find it interesting that bloggers have guest bloggers posting while they're on vacation. I don't understand the concept. If you were going to be gone for over two weeks, maybe I could see it. Or if you are contractually obligated. Otherwise, it appears to me to be an example of believing one will be forgotten. When it comes down to the meat of things, that is why I asked so many questions at the beginning. If we're not involved, will we be forgotten?
I think it's really important to think about these questions and to keep social media life in perspective with the other three parts of life and within the realities of itself. Remember, social media will always be there. It's sort of like a water faucet. If you leave it on (at least in most parts of the U.S.) it will continue to flow. And flow. And flow. But it's not necessary to be concerned that if you turn the faucet off that there won't be water readily accessible the next time you turn the tap.
For some people, it's important or easier to schedule the time when they put their social media life on the back burner. For years, I've heard people talk about putting time aside for themselves, or for their family. Sometimes work is busier and you think about putting more time in. With social media, people talk mainly about putting time aside to get away from it which is probably healthy for them. I prefer to let it occur more naturally though. I'm on and off mainly by happen stance. Otherwise it feels like a chore either way. If I have to purposely turn it off, I feel a sense of addiction. If I have to purposely turn it on, I feel like I'm waiting for an important broadcast, like a doctor on call, or a firefighter.
Though sometimes, I still lose perspective. For example, I left my phone accidently at home last Saturday. At first, I panicked a bit. How will I know if someone tweets me? or wants to IM? Quickly, though I felt relieved to be disconnected and had a perfectly fine day out and about without my phone. It felt good for an afternoon to "live without warning" and not feel like I was part of the emergency broadcast system.
This Is Not A Test
I have not tweeted anything for three days. Did you miss me? Did you even notice? Did you think something was wrong? What if I were to extend the three days to four, or to five days? Or a week? Or a month? Would you notice then?
What if I posted no articles on this blog for a month? Would you be inclined to ask, "was there an emergency?" "Or were you depressed?" "Or were you truly that busy?"
I'm going on vacation next month for ten days. If I don't post or tweet will anyone in SocialMediaLand notice?
Lots of questions, yes. And here's another one: why am I asking so many questions?
Fran's Fault
Fran Melmed over at Free Range Communications and I were talking about her upcoming vacation and how she was going to completely disconnect from her social media life during this time. Subsequently, on her blog she writes this, "the bravado, and now the economic uncertainty, that keeps us from taking vacation drives a lot of unhealthy behaviors, beginning with our sustaining a culture that confuses longer hours with better results. for those of us using social media, the endless churn of information instills in us the sense that we need to contribute or we’re forgotten."
I've been a recent convert to the social media lifestyle. I enjoy it. But I know that when I did convert, I had to focus on a balancing act which now includes four parts:
Family
Work life
Social media life
Me
I really don't mind the balancing act. But what I find interesting about them is this: out of the four parts, only social media life is infinite and only turns off when you choose. At work, the shop does close. Your family have their lives. And you will probably need to go to sleep soon. But social media is always on and ready for you to jump in.
Something In The Water
I find it interesting that bloggers have guest bloggers posting while they're on vacation. I don't understand the concept. If you were going to be gone for over two weeks, maybe I could see it. Or if you are contractually obligated. Otherwise, it appears to me to be an example of believing one will be forgotten. When it comes down to the meat of things, that is why I asked so many questions at the beginning. If we're not involved, will we be forgotten?
I think it's really important to think about these questions and to keep social media life in perspective with the other three parts of life and within the realities of itself. Remember, social media will always be there. It's sort of like a water faucet. If you leave it on (at least in most parts of the U.S.) it will continue to flow. And flow. And flow. But it's not necessary to be concerned that if you turn the faucet off that there won't be water readily accessible the next time you turn the tap.
For some people, it's important or easier to schedule the time when they put their social media life on the back burner. For years, I've heard people talk about putting time aside for themselves, or for their family. Sometimes work is busier and you think about putting more time in. With social media, people talk mainly about putting time aside to get away from it which is probably healthy for them. I prefer to let it occur more naturally though. I'm on and off mainly by happen stance. Otherwise it feels like a chore either way. If I have to purposely turn it off, I feel a sense of addiction. If I have to purposely turn it on, I feel like I'm waiting for an important broadcast, like a doctor on call, or a firefighter.
Though sometimes, I still lose perspective. For example, I left my phone accidently at home last Saturday. At first, I panicked a bit. How will I know if someone tweets me? or wants to IM? Quickly, though I felt relieved to be disconnected and had a perfectly fine day out and about without my phone. It felt good for an afternoon to "live without warning" and not feel like I was part of the emergency broadcast system.
Warning: No Chocolate
Rough days require drastic measures. This means a 3 p.m. trip to the building's vending machine for some chocolate.
Unfortunately the pickings for chocolate in the vending machines lately has been slim.
Yesterday though I noticed that the vending machine company had been aware of this too. And instead of ignoring what is a relatively cataclysmic event, posted the following sign on their machine:
Where's My Chocolate???
This is the time of year when we start watching the weather forecasts. Warm weather means we have to be careful when it comes to chocolate candy. The lower the melting temperature, the smoother the chocolate tastes. Confectioner's chocolate (the good stuff) contains cocoa butter. It not only melts faster than chocolate, but it will also separate, rise to the top and turn a grayish color. Consumers refer to this as "old" or "stale" candy.
The other type of chocolate is composition chocolate, and is mostly used as a warm weather replacement. Some popular bars that are covered with composition chocolate are Peanut Chews and Baby Ruth.
We will do our best to provide you with some chocolate selections during the warm spring and summer months. But as in past, you will see more jellies, hard candies and licorice.
Thank you for your patronage!!! AVM Services
Admittingly the sign does not excuse the lack of chocolate. But how brilliantly simplistic. This note was typed, xeroxed and taped to the inside window of the machine. It probably took upwards of 15 minutes to develop and implement.
Even though there was no chocolate, I felt a great deal better knowing that
- they knew the need,
- they communicated that they knew there was a need,
- and it would be rectified soon.
I feel weird saying that I felt better. I wonder if I just don't expect simple and direct communications anymore.
Hello SHRM
To those who attended Wednesday night’s Philly SHRM networking event, if I smelled, let me apologize right now.
You see, I ride my bike all around town: to work, to home, etc. Wednesday was no exception since I was going to a part of town that was only vaguely familiar to me. Plus it was hot and muggy outside. Thus I felt yukky at the event. But it was worth attending. Actually I was pleasantly surprised.
Let me explain why.
Before I moved to Philly, five+ years ago, I was moderately involved in the Pittsburgh HR Association. They were a great bunch to be around: knowledgeable, supportive and fun. Thinking all HR associations were the same, I started my involvement with the Philly SHRM chapter as soon as I moved here. I was quickly disappointed though by the lack of real networking opportunities. What I witnessed were two things:
1) morning lectures where people gathered with people they knew, ate their danishes, listened to someone speak at them and immediately ran off to work
2) a new member committee that only went so far as to sit you at a table with other new members and had no good vision as to how to increase membership.
So I quietly…slipped…away.
Five years later, most of my networking is with people outside of Philadelphia. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just that I do enjoy networking and it’s really not practical for me to be always running to D.C., Chicago, or wherever to do that. Plus I’ve become a little envious of my colleagues in other cities that have strong SHRM chapters and hearing that it behooves HR professionals to become more involved locally. It also didn’t hurt that I have had the opportunity to meet SHRM’s former Chief Member Engagement Officer, China Gorman, and that I’m encouraged by the presence of the new Manager, PR and Social Media Relations, Curtis Midkiff (though why he is not following me and similar others on Twitter seems a little odd).
With the past behind me and a willingness to dip my toe into the pool again, I signed up for last Wednesday’s SHRM Social. And I’m glad I did. With approximately 40 people in attendance, I had the opportunity to chat with some very nice folks. In was in the lobby of the Abramson Research Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. So it was not in a filthy bar and it was well-staged for talking to people. They had a nice spread of food, open bar of beer and wine. Most of the people there were interested in meeting someone new so I didn't feel like I was wasting my time.
If I had one complaint it would be this: the suits. Guys, what is up with the stiff necks and stiff collars? Lighten up; it’s not a job interview. And don’t just talk to other guys in suits. Don’t think I didn’t see you. Trust me. A suit and tie doesn’t give you special powers.
But then again, showing up in sweat-stretched business casual wear, beat-up shoes and a sweaty scalp, didn’t make me the bell of the ball. So I appreciate that I was not completely ostracized. I also appreciated it enough that I put it out there that I’d be interested in writing for them and/or speaking at a session. More importantly, I’m looking forward to attending the next time around.
Congratulations, Philly SHRM, you got it right this time.
You see, I ride my bike all around town: to work, to home, etc. Wednesday was no exception since I was going to a part of town that was only vaguely familiar to me. Plus it was hot and muggy outside. Thus I felt yukky at the event. But it was worth attending. Actually I was pleasantly surprised.
Let me explain why.
Before I moved to Philly, five+ years ago, I was moderately involved in the Pittsburgh HR Association. They were a great bunch to be around: knowledgeable, supportive and fun. Thinking all HR associations were the same, I started my involvement with the Philly SHRM chapter as soon as I moved here. I was quickly disappointed though by the lack of real networking opportunities. What I witnessed were two things:
1) morning lectures where people gathered with people they knew, ate their danishes, listened to someone speak at them and immediately ran off to work
2) a new member committee that only went so far as to sit you at a table with other new members and had no good vision as to how to increase membership.
So I quietly…slipped…away.
Five years later, most of my networking is with people outside of Philadelphia. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just that I do enjoy networking and it’s really not practical for me to be always running to D.C., Chicago, or wherever to do that. Plus I’ve become a little envious of my colleagues in other cities that have strong SHRM chapters and hearing that it behooves HR professionals to become more involved locally. It also didn’t hurt that I have had the opportunity to meet SHRM’s former Chief Member Engagement Officer, China Gorman, and that I’m encouraged by the presence of the new Manager, PR and Social Media Relations, Curtis Midkiff (though why he is not following me and similar others on Twitter seems a little odd).
With the past behind me and a willingness to dip my toe into the pool again, I signed up for last Wednesday’s SHRM Social. And I’m glad I did. With approximately 40 people in attendance, I had the opportunity to chat with some very nice folks. In was in the lobby of the Abramson Research Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. So it was not in a filthy bar and it was well-staged for talking to people. They had a nice spread of food, open bar of beer and wine. Most of the people there were interested in meeting someone new so I didn't feel like I was wasting my time.
If I had one complaint it would be this: the suits. Guys, what is up with the stiff necks and stiff collars? Lighten up; it’s not a job interview. And don’t just talk to other guys in suits. Don’t think I didn’t see you. Trust me. A suit and tie doesn’t give you special powers.
But then again, showing up in sweat-stretched business casual wear, beat-up shoes and a sweaty scalp, didn’t make me the bell of the ball. So I appreciate that I was not completely ostracized. I also appreciated it enough that I put it out there that I’d be interested in writing for them and/or speaking at a session. More importantly, I’m looking forward to attending the next time around.
Congratulations, Philly SHRM, you got it right this time.
A Tool By Any Other Name
The other day I bought an axe.
It was a strange purchase, I admit. Mainly because I live in a small condo and I wasn't sure how I was going to use it.
But it looked really awesome. It had an amazingly shiny and sharp blade. It had a strong, carefully crafted handle. It looked great on TV: rugged men in work boots chopping things and tossing their axes into their pickup trucks.
Not surprisingly, my partner asked me, "Why did you buy this? What are you planning on using this for?"
"I don't know. I figure it's a tool, and we can always use tools. Right?"
Fast forward a couple of weeks later, our condo is trashed. I bought this new tool and I had to use it. Since there are no trees around, I went totally nuts -- Jack Nicholson/The Shining style.
Kind of stupid, huh? Well, whatever.
What Went Wrong
I saw a bright shiny object and listened to an ad agency telling me that I needed it. And because I had the tool, I used it. I totally destroyed my condo. My thought was: what's the point of having a tool, and not using it?
Today, I'm a little regretful. All I wanted was to fit in. I got the tool that was going to make it all happen for me. All I ended up with was a $20,000 bill to fix the damage I did to the condo. Plus my next door neighbor is suing me because I allegedly broke a water pipe in his wall and flooded his condo.
But there is a bright side to this. Despite the "damage", because of my axe, I now have a lot of cool friends on "FourAxe" "Axebook" "LinkedAxe" and "Twitaxe" and I consider myself an elite member of these groups. The proof is the pudding. Look at how many people are following me: "Axeful of Talent" "PunkRockAxe" "Axe Ringleader" just to name a few.
Now that I'm the axe expert, I'm taking my knowledge of axes to work. I had a meeting with the CEO and he agreed everyone should have these tools. She doesn't know what we are going to do with these tools. But she agrees with me that everyone should have these tools now, and it's time our organization bought axes for all the employees. And I love it. Employees come to me looking for my professional advice on how to use the axes.
Fast forward to a couple of weeks later. The lawsuits have already started. Since I think it's just because of misuse by a few bad apples, I don't think there's any reason to change anything. A couple of people have suffered some damage: some bloody fingers, some hurt feelings. But all in all, I assure the CEO we should not concern ourselves with these incidents and we should continue onward despite the obvious risk.
The Gig Is Up, The News Is Out...
You've probably figured by now I'm not talking about axes (or that I trashed my condo, or my colleagues used axes at work). What I am talking about is any tool that anyone is telling you as an HR person you need to have for your organization. But for whatever reason, it just simply does not make any sense.
I thought about this topic after reading Bryon Abramowitz post on The HR Technologist about using 4 Square to make a hiring decision. I replied to his post with a thoughtful disagreement and he responded in kind. But I don't want to complain about Bryon, or his opinions. I've met him and he seems like a well-intentioned nice guy. What I want to make note of is just because an expert, in whatever field, makes a recommendation, it does not mean that it is automatically right for you or your organization.
Never follow any leader blindly. If you do you could end up spending a lot of money and/or looking like a fool. Or becoming a tool yourself.
It was a strange purchase, I admit. Mainly because I live in a small condo and I wasn't sure how I was going to use it.
But it looked really awesome. It had an amazingly shiny and sharp blade. It had a strong, carefully crafted handle. It looked great on TV: rugged men in work boots chopping things and tossing their axes into their pickup trucks.
Not surprisingly, my partner asked me, "Why did you buy this? What are you planning on using this for?"
"I don't know. I figure it's a tool, and we can always use tools. Right?"
Kind of stupid, huh? Well, whatever.
What Went Wrong
I saw a bright shiny object and listened to an ad agency telling me that I needed it. And because I had the tool, I used it. I totally destroyed my condo. My thought was: what's the point of having a tool, and not using it?
Today, I'm a little regretful. All I wanted was to fit in. I got the tool that was going to make it all happen for me. All I ended up with was a $20,000 bill to fix the damage I did to the condo. Plus my next door neighbor is suing me because I allegedly broke a water pipe in his wall and flooded his condo.
But there is a bright side to this. Despite the "damage", because of my axe, I now have a lot of cool friends on "FourAxe" "Axebook" "LinkedAxe" and "Twitaxe" and I consider myself an elite member of these groups. The proof is the pudding. Look at how many people are following me: "Axeful of Talent" "PunkRockAxe" "Axe Ringleader" just to name a few.
Now that I'm the axe expert, I'm taking my knowledge of axes to work. I had a meeting with the CEO and he agreed everyone should have these tools. She doesn't know what we are going to do with these tools. But she agrees with me that everyone should have these tools now, and it's time our organization bought axes for all the employees. And I love it. Employees come to me looking for my professional advice on how to use the axes.
Fast forward to a couple of weeks later. The lawsuits have already started. Since I think it's just because of misuse by a few bad apples, I don't think there's any reason to change anything. A couple of people have suffered some damage: some bloody fingers, some hurt feelings. But all in all, I assure the CEO we should not concern ourselves with these incidents and we should continue onward despite the obvious risk.
The Gig Is Up, The News Is Out...
You've probably figured by now I'm not talking about axes (or that I trashed my condo, or my colleagues used axes at work). What I am talking about is any tool that anyone is telling you as an HR person you need to have for your organization. But for whatever reason, it just simply does not make any sense.
I thought about this topic after reading Bryon Abramowitz post on The HR Technologist about using 4 Square to make a hiring decision. I replied to his post with a thoughtful disagreement and he responded in kind. But I don't want to complain about Bryon, or his opinions. I've met him and he seems like a well-intentioned nice guy. What I want to make note of is just because an expert, in whatever field, makes a recommendation, it does not mean that it is automatically right for you or your organization.
Never follow any leader blindly. If you do you could end up spending a lot of money and/or looking like a fool. Or becoming a tool yourself.
Beyond The Scrunchy
By now, most of you have already read my previous post Send In The Clowns. What you may not have read were three excellent comments by Charlie Judy, Paul Hebert and Dawn Hrdlica. Each of them had good points that I wanted to respond to in kind. But I could not write anything worth posting. Except this:
Accidents in this world do happen. No matter how much we plan. For the most part, I don't believe that there is an intention to build windshield wipers that set your car on fire, or shampoo that sets your hair on fire, or a flea collar that sets your dog....well, you get the point. But there is a need for us to forget about the tragedies that occur from such accidents.
I understand Dawn's point, and it's one that I learned long ago in HR, to not speak until you have all the facts. Once all the dust settles, and all of hoopla has died down, that's when the real discovery takes place and history can begin to write itself. But I just find it truly strange that someone would build something 5,000 feet below sea level where people can't go, and if it broke would be incredibly difficult to fix and would cause immense damage to the surrounding environment, i.e. regional jobs, wildlife, resources, etc.
On one hand, you have the Bernard Madoff's of the world and their objective is to take you for every dime you have. On the other you have companies that build something and walk away crossing their fingers that nothing bad happens. In both instances, there is a big effort to not only get the general public to forgive but to forget. We generally do both over the course of time. And forgiving is a good thing. It allows us to move past the would of / could of / should of, and figure out real solutions to fix the problem. The forgetting on the other hand is a whole different matter. Granted this oil disaster is going to be hard to forget. But this is why when I see the Tony Hayward's scrunchy face video, I just can't help but think: they want to draw your sympathies away from those who have suffered from this, and for us to feel sympathy for how bad he's feeling. This way we will forget the oil disaster that much sooner.
So I say to the executives at BP, don't cry on the shoulders of the general public. Go to your HR department. They'll help you with that. If you want good PR, concentrate on getting this mess cleaned up. Quit making videos that resemble a photo spread in a National Geographic magazine.
And to the general public, don't let this oil disaster slip our minds so soon. Don't get caught up in the World Cup (America, really?-do you need a new fad that badly?), or Joran van der Sloot (who is this guy?) or that Sandra Bullock kissed Scarlett Johansson (front page worthy?-just stop it). The point is BP wants the general public to forget about this as soon as possible. I hope we don't. And I'm going to do my bit to make sure we don't, by spreading a little humor.
So for your viewing pleasure, here is the Upright Citizen's Brigade take on the oil disaster, courtesy of ucbcomedy.com. I think this is brilliant.
Accidents in this world do happen. No matter how much we plan. For the most part, I don't believe that there is an intention to build windshield wipers that set your car on fire, or shampoo that sets your hair on fire, or a flea collar that sets your dog....well, you get the point. But there is a need for us to forget about the tragedies that occur from such accidents.
I understand Dawn's point, and it's one that I learned long ago in HR, to not speak until you have all the facts. Once all the dust settles, and all of hoopla has died down, that's when the real discovery takes place and history can begin to write itself. But I just find it truly strange that someone would build something 5,000 feet below sea level where people can't go, and if it broke would be incredibly difficult to fix and would cause immense damage to the surrounding environment, i.e. regional jobs, wildlife, resources, etc.
On one hand, you have the Bernard Madoff's of the world and their objective is to take you for every dime you have. On the other you have companies that build something and walk away crossing their fingers that nothing bad happens. In both instances, there is a big effort to not only get the general public to forgive but to forget. We generally do both over the course of time. And forgiving is a good thing. It allows us to move past the would of / could of / should of, and figure out real solutions to fix the problem. The forgetting on the other hand is a whole different matter. Granted this oil disaster is going to be hard to forget. But this is why when I see the Tony Hayward's scrunchy face video, I just can't help but think: they want to draw your sympathies away from those who have suffered from this, and for us to feel sympathy for how bad he's feeling. This way we will forget the oil disaster that much sooner.
So I say to the executives at BP, don't cry on the shoulders of the general public. Go to your HR department. They'll help you with that. If you want good PR, concentrate on getting this mess cleaned up. Quit making videos that resemble a photo spread in a National Geographic magazine.
And to the general public, don't let this oil disaster slip our minds so soon. Don't get caught up in the World Cup (America, really?-do you need a new fad that badly?), or Joran van der Sloot (who is this guy?) or that Sandra Bullock kissed Scarlett Johansson (front page worthy?-just stop it). The point is BP wants the general public to forget about this as soon as possible. I hope we don't. And I'm going to do my bit to make sure we don't, by spreading a little humor.
So for your viewing pleasure, here is the Upright Citizen's Brigade take on the oil disaster, courtesy of ucbcomedy.com. I think this is brilliant.
Send In The Clowns
Poor Tony Hayward, CEO of BP.
At one point, he looked like this:
and this:
But not anymore. Oh no. Today when you see Tony, his face is all scrunched up like this:
He even made a video of his scrunched up face. BP bought commercial airtime during the major network news programs to show you his scrunched up face.
In fact, Tony would like to stop making the scrunched up face. Here he declares he wants his life back:
I don't know what is more annoying:
1) The risk assessment that determined measures preventing an eminent mechanical breakdown were more costly to implement than the cost of clean up efforts after the breakdown occurred.
2) By boycotting BP gas stations, there is a better chance that we are doing more damage to the small business owner of the station, than BP.
3) Oil is going to be washing up on the shores of the Gulf Of Mexico forever. (Did you know that oil from the Exxon Valdez is still showing up on the shores of Alaska?).
or
4) The vast number of dollars, BP spent coaching Tony to use that scrunched up face. Not to mention, the self-piteous tone to his voice, or saying the words that we all want to hear--regardless of whether or not they're true.
It's a tough call. But today I have to say it's #4. But I really should feel sorry for Tony. For goodness sakes, he wants his life back. Maybe we can get Bob Geldof to throw him a rock concert. It can be called Face Aid.
At the very least, maybe we can all pitch in and hire a clown to stop by his office to cheer him up.
A nice, cute, funny clown....
(This post was inspired by an editorial comment in a newspaper suggesting that it was unfair to be so hard on BP. I guess if you have the right PR, you can alter sympathies from the victims to the perpetrators.)
At one point, he looked like this:
and this:
But not anymore. Oh no. Today when you see Tony, his face is all scrunched up like this:
He even made a video of his scrunched up face. BP bought commercial airtime during the major network news programs to show you his scrunched up face.
In fact, Tony would like to stop making the scrunched up face. Here he declares he wants his life back:
I don't know what is more annoying:
1) The risk assessment that determined measures preventing an eminent mechanical breakdown were more costly to implement than the cost of clean up efforts after the breakdown occurred.
2) By boycotting BP gas stations, there is a better chance that we are doing more damage to the small business owner of the station, than BP.
3) Oil is going to be washing up on the shores of the Gulf Of Mexico forever. (Did you know that oil from the Exxon Valdez is still showing up on the shores of Alaska?).
or
4) The vast number of dollars, BP spent coaching Tony to use that scrunched up face. Not to mention, the self-piteous tone to his voice, or saying the words that we all want to hear--regardless of whether or not they're true.
It's a tough call. But today I have to say it's #4. But I really should feel sorry for Tony. For goodness sakes, he wants his life back. Maybe we can get Bob Geldof to throw him a rock concert. It can be called Face Aid.
At the very least, maybe we can all pitch in and hire a clown to stop by his office to cheer him up.
(This post was inspired by an editorial comment in a newspaper suggesting that it was unfair to be so hard on BP. I guess if you have the right PR, you can alter sympathies from the victims to the perpetrators.)
Big Sky Theory
What's Really Out There
Remembering which star is which is something that remains difficult for most. Fortunately that evening I was able to use the Google Sky Map on my Droid and point out that we were not looking at distant suns, but planets in our solar system reflecting our sun.
The stars are utterly amazing. No matter how far you stretch your hands, you will never touch them. Yet they hold our attention and spur our imaginations. Even in this age of instantaneous knowledge, stars still maintain their mystery. Though what I find even more mysterious than the stars themselves, is the space in between the stars. According to astronomers, we don't even see all the stars in the sky from standing on the earth. So you know that between the stars you do see, there are possibly millions more in between them that you don't see.
The problem is that abandoning old satellites does not always work out they way they plan. Old satellites don't leave orbit as quickly as predicted. They remain, deteriorate and pieces fall off and collide with other satellites. As a result, this residue of debris objects (over 10 centimeters in diameter) has increased from 6,500 in 1995 to 15,000 in 2010 (according to the US Space Surveillance Network).
So In Between All The Stars Is Increasingly More Junk.
Frankly this is what really concerns me about this latest recession and its effect on the U.S. workforce. When our government enacts bills such as Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act and spins it as a jobs bill; because of the mortgage situation people can't sell their property so they can move to where there are jobs; or when I see crap like this want ad that declares no unemployed permitted to apply. For added measure, let's add in that workplace bullying is on the rise, because less ability to be mobile is fodder for these creeps to act out and not be kept in check.
This is much like the Big Sky Theory. In the workforce, there is no worry for the residue that will be left over. The assumption that all the grief being handed to the workforce will either float away or just burn up. Much like these old satellites, I see the workforce diligently staying in orbit, but breaking into pieces, creating a chain reaction of even more counter-production by crashing and damaging other people. So in between the metaphoric workforce stars (the productive, the happy, the successful) is increasingly more metaphoric workforce debris (the lackadaisical, the miserable, the barely breathing).
A Landfill By Any Other Name
I think most people understand that the garbage we create: pizza boxes; cell phones; car tires; etc. need a place for disposal; we recognize the need for better solutions to landfills. But when you look in the sky it's easy to overlook the notion that the junk in between the stars is growing and becoming a problem that requires a solution to clean it up.
Even though one cannot see a problem does not mean it does not exist. And just because the sky looks like it can handle all the junk that we throw at it, it does not mean that it's true, or that it's predictable, or that it won't come back to bite us in the future.
There are some folks out there doing some great work helping the workforce. But we have to realize that if we continue to create more junk in between the stars, some of it will float away and some will burn up. But the more junk created, the greater the chance the debris will fall to earth and cause even greater damage.
The Great Control Trick
If you ever get the opportunity to personally spend time with me, or enough time with me, you will notice I have a tendency to use a cache of personal catchphrases. One of my personal favorites and one that I use frequently is "I just do what I'm told."
"Just ... Let ... Go"*
"I just do what I'm told" is simply the abdication of power. I like using it when there are four or more people at a restaurant and we are simply dividing the bill four ways. I know dividing by four is not difficult. But when you start figuring the tip, adding the tip onto the bill, dividing by four, collecting the money & making sure it's all there, I am simply not interested in that responsibility. So I tell my fellow patrons, "just tell me how much I owe." And if it seems reasonable, I plop down whatever cash is requested.
It also works at home. When describing what it's like to live in my house, I say, "I just do what I'm told." I have my space, my music, and my computer. When I'm told to straighten up the house or take out the garbage, I generally comply. The trade off is I don't have to be bothered with decisions such as paint colors, what drawer forks go in, where pillows are placed and what I'm going to eat for dinner. These decisions and many more like it are issues in a house that I have absolutely no interest in.
And it worked when I was a child. I remember when I was between the ages of 5 and 10, I liked running and jumping around. It was if I was a human Tigger. For the most part, running and jumping outside was fine. But running inside the house was a whole different matter. And this would drive my father completely insane. If he caught me running in the house, he would yell for me to return to the point of origin and resume my travels in a slower paced manner. If he felt the miles per hour were still too quick, I would have to repeat it until I got it right. By now, you're probably picturing a scene from "Mommie Dearest". But in reality, as annoying as the process of returning to the original spot, I think I delighted in this game. I delighted in my father's attempt to control this. Just recently he reminded me of these incidents, and his amazement that I NEVER learned. I would still run. I would get yelled at. I would look at my father with the face that said, your rules make no sense, then I would walk. And when it came time to run in the house again, I did it regardless of my dad's presence.
There's Control In Compliance
What does each of these stories have in common? The obvious answer is that I acted in compliance. Perhaps another answer is that I gave up control.
The first answer has the connotation that I had no choice. The connotation behind the second answer is that I chose to give up control. And that is the Great Control Trick. By making a conscious choice to let someone else have control, you post facto, have maintained control.
To put this into more of a business perspective, the best example I can think of it to describe this is the use of Tai Chi as a martial art. Tai Chi is mainly practiced for its health benefits and in the Western Hemisphere it is typically seen as a series of slow motion movements practiced in parks in larger cities. It is commonly taught here at community colleges and martial arts studios. The fascinating aspect of Tai Chi is that for those who are extremely well trained, it can be used as a serious martial art. When practiced this way, the movements are a form of self-defense in combat. The expert is accustomed to the appropriate change in response to an outside force and knows when and how to yield to an incoming attack as opposed to facing it head on. Obviously as managers and HR professionals we do not face these types of Bruce Lee's in the workplace. But metaphorically I think there is a lesson there. Sometimes managers and HR professionals believe only in traditional means of control: facing it head on. Whereas by yielding to the attack it never affects you or your business and the attacker/attack continues to move past you. I would not agree that every situation should be met with a yielding perspective. I do think the ability to yield and maintain control over a situation is a skill that can be incredibly useful. And more importantly can be a useful alternative to the approach of always facing it head on.
What About Bob
I will admit, I'm not a devout book reader anymore. I want books to grab me by the throat, bang my brain into submission and make me bow down to its glory. I know it's a lot to expect, but that's how I think it should be. My point is, if I make a book recommendation, I'm pretty f@#$ing serious about it. So if you have not read, "The No Asshole Rule" by Bob Sutton by now, stop reading this right now and download it to your Kindle. Two reasons: first of all Bob's a lot smarter than me; second, this concept should be adopted by every company in the world.
The other thing about Bob is that he is writing a new book entitled, "Good Boss, Bad Boss" and for the Harvard Business Review he shared a glimpse of it with an article called, 12 Things Good Bosses Believe. I love these so much; I am reprinting the list here:
1. I have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it feels like to work for me.
2. My success — and that of my people — depends largely on being the master of obvious and mundane things, not on magical, obscure, or breakthrough ideas or methods.
3. Having ambitious and well-defined goals is important, but it is useless to think about them much. My job is to focus on the small wins that enable my people to make a little progress every day.
4. One of the most important, and most difficult, parts of my job is to strike the delicate balance between being too assertive and not assertive enough.
5. My job is to serve as a human shield, to protect my people from external intrusions, distractions, and idiocy of every stripe — and to avoid imposing my own idiocy on them as well.
6. I strive to be confident enough to convince people that I am in charge, but humble enough to realize that I am often going to be wrong.
7. I aim to fight as if I am right, and listen as if I am wrong — and to teach my people to do the same thing.
8. One of the best tests of my leadership — and my organization — is "what happens after people make a mistake?"
9. Innovation is crucial to every team and organization. So my job is to encourage my people to generate and test all kinds of new ideas. But it is also my job to help them kill off all the bad ideas we generate, and most of the good ideas, too.
10. Bad is stronger than good. It is more important to eliminate the negative than to accentuate the positive.
11. How I do things is as important as what I do.
12. Because I wield power over others, I am at great risk of acting like an insensitive jerk — and not realizing it.
Immediately following this list came the question, "did I miss anything?"
Bob-I would like to add #13: Sometimes the best way to control situations is to give up control over it and just yield.
Now you tell me, did he miss anything? Hit me with #14, #15, #16, etc. Or tell me how much you love control, or how much you love to comply.
*This is a quote from the movie "Fight Club". This is the scene in which Brad Pitt convinces Ed Norton to just let the car crash.
"Just ... Let ... Go"*
"I just do what I'm told" is simply the abdication of power. I like using it when there are four or more people at a restaurant and we are simply dividing the bill four ways. I know dividing by four is not difficult. But when you start figuring the tip, adding the tip onto the bill, dividing by four, collecting the money & making sure it's all there, I am simply not interested in that responsibility. So I tell my fellow patrons, "just tell me how much I owe." And if it seems reasonable, I plop down whatever cash is requested.
It also works at home. When describing what it's like to live in my house, I say, "I just do what I'm told." I have my space, my music, and my computer. When I'm told to straighten up the house or take out the garbage, I generally comply. The trade off is I don't have to be bothered with decisions such as paint colors, what drawer forks go in, where pillows are placed and what I'm going to eat for dinner. These decisions and many more like it are issues in a house that I have absolutely no interest in.
And it worked when I was a child. I remember when I was between the ages of 5 and 10, I liked running and jumping around. It was if I was a human Tigger. For the most part, running and jumping outside was fine. But running inside the house was a whole different matter. And this would drive my father completely insane. If he caught me running in the house, he would yell for me to return to the point of origin and resume my travels in a slower paced manner. If he felt the miles per hour were still too quick, I would have to repeat it until I got it right. By now, you're probably picturing a scene from "Mommie Dearest". But in reality, as annoying as the process of returning to the original spot, I think I delighted in this game. I delighted in my father's attempt to control this. Just recently he reminded me of these incidents, and his amazement that I NEVER learned. I would still run. I would get yelled at. I would look at my father with the face that said, your rules make no sense, then I would walk. And when it came time to run in the house again, I did it regardless of my dad's presence.
There's Control In Compliance
What does each of these stories have in common? The obvious answer is that I acted in compliance. Perhaps another answer is that I gave up control.
The first answer has the connotation that I had no choice. The connotation behind the second answer is that I chose to give up control. And that is the Great Control Trick. By making a conscious choice to let someone else have control, you post facto, have maintained control.
To put this into more of a business perspective, the best example I can think of it to describe this is the use of Tai Chi as a martial art. Tai Chi is mainly practiced for its health benefits and in the Western Hemisphere it is typically seen as a series of slow motion movements practiced in parks in larger cities. It is commonly taught here at community colleges and martial arts studios. The fascinating aspect of Tai Chi is that for those who are extremely well trained, it can be used as a serious martial art. When practiced this way, the movements are a form of self-defense in combat. The expert is accustomed to the appropriate change in response to an outside force and knows when and how to yield to an incoming attack as opposed to facing it head on. Obviously as managers and HR professionals we do not face these types of Bruce Lee's in the workplace. But metaphorically I think there is a lesson there. Sometimes managers and HR professionals believe only in traditional means of control: facing it head on. Whereas by yielding to the attack it never affects you or your business and the attacker/attack continues to move past you. I would not agree that every situation should be met with a yielding perspective. I do think the ability to yield and maintain control over a situation is a skill that can be incredibly useful. And more importantly can be a useful alternative to the approach of always facing it head on.
What About Bob
I will admit, I'm not a devout book reader anymore. I want books to grab me by the throat, bang my brain into submission and make me bow down to its glory. I know it's a lot to expect, but that's how I think it should be. My point is, if I make a book recommendation, I'm pretty f@#$ing serious about it. So if you have not read, "The No Asshole Rule" by Bob Sutton by now, stop reading this right now and download it to your Kindle. Two reasons: first of all Bob's a lot smarter than me; second, this concept should be adopted by every company in the world.
The other thing about Bob is that he is writing a new book entitled, "Good Boss, Bad Boss" and for the Harvard Business Review he shared a glimpse of it with an article called, 12 Things Good Bosses Believe. I love these so much; I am reprinting the list here:
1. I have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it feels like to work for me.
2. My success — and that of my people — depends largely on being the master of obvious and mundane things, not on magical, obscure, or breakthrough ideas or methods.
3. Having ambitious and well-defined goals is important, but it is useless to think about them much. My job is to focus on the small wins that enable my people to make a little progress every day.
4. One of the most important, and most difficult, parts of my job is to strike the delicate balance between being too assertive and not assertive enough.
5. My job is to serve as a human shield, to protect my people from external intrusions, distractions, and idiocy of every stripe — and to avoid imposing my own idiocy on them as well.
6. I strive to be confident enough to convince people that I am in charge, but humble enough to realize that I am often going to be wrong.
7. I aim to fight as if I am right, and listen as if I am wrong — and to teach my people to do the same thing.
8. One of the best tests of my leadership — and my organization — is "what happens after people make a mistake?"
9. Innovation is crucial to every team and organization. So my job is to encourage my people to generate and test all kinds of new ideas. But it is also my job to help them kill off all the bad ideas we generate, and most of the good ideas, too.
10. Bad is stronger than good. It is more important to eliminate the negative than to accentuate the positive.
11. How I do things is as important as what I do.
12. Because I wield power over others, I am at great risk of acting like an insensitive jerk — and not realizing it.
Immediately following this list came the question, "did I miss anything?"
Bob-I would like to add #13: Sometimes the best way to control situations is to give up control over it and just yield.
Now you tell me, did he miss anything? Hit me with #14, #15, #16, etc. Or tell me how much you love control, or how much you love to comply.
*This is a quote from the movie "Fight Club". This is the scene in which Brad Pitt convinces Ed Norton to just let the car crash.
Posts
