This is HRAthletics's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following HRAthletics's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
HRAthletics
Recent Activity
I love this exclusionary phrase ;) Being that I don't work in the government or for a labor union, I want to exclude the ones who get it wrong especially after I warned them or protested.
1 reply
It's pretty safe to assume that if the CEO understands culture, the HR Leader understands culture even more. Can't imagine a CEO who understands culture that would tolerate a HR Leader that doesn't. Now, if your CEO doesn't understand culture you may have a HR Leader that doesn't by definition, but again hard to imagine their understanding being less than the CEO. I guess your CEO could not expect, and therefore not hold HR accountable, for culture leadership. But that sounds a little dinosaur to me at this point. Maybe I'm wrong...
1 reply
I disagree with SHRM and the HRPA. To this point whenever someone promises standardized metrics around things like diversity, training and turnover, chances are the numbers alone will be meaningless. What good are training dollars spent if you don't know what kind of impact it has on the business? A more useful metric would be "x dollars spent on training will result in a x percent increase in revenue or profitability." Requiring more metrics from HR and treating us like other functions is a positive move net/net. Other functions are just as frustrated about metrics they're required to report, and there's money to be made off of that. This happens all the time on Wall Street and the smart money loves it. For example, if you just look at a high turnover rate and assume that it reflects poor management you may lose money. You might want study previous performance and where (and with whom) the turnover is occuring before determining whether it's good or bad. Especially if the Company is going through a transformation or new leadership. At the end of the day HR needs to be pushed to report metrics and I think the public reporting and competitive concerns are BS. But at this point in the game, SHRM should be championing more strategic metrics.
1 reply
Bushwood had its time. It's Tricky is overused and kind of corny. Tremendous Upside has a good underlying meaning, but could mean overrated. Not familiar with Dude Abides. Save Ferris makes me feel the best and gets my vote. It's all about friends, family, priorities and making the most out of everyday. As for write ins, I absolutely love Dunder Mifflin! It's all about how good employees can overcome any obstacle.
1 reply
Hoefully for whoever prepped him, he hit the wrong button or the right one too many times. You know how Windows is...
1 reply
Phew... I thought you were saying that size doesn't matter. But it sounds like it still does.
1 reply
Zuckerberg's upbringing impresses me with his excellence in academics and obviously his software writing ability. Other than inheriting the family business, I'm not really sure what skills Murdoch had that led him to success. Murdoch may have impressive credentials, but at first glance it reminds me that leaders are no longer defined by their title or where they come from. New leaders are now defined by what skills or value they offer to others. Reality or perception it appears that Murdoch engaged in cut throat management, bought out companies and used his power to bully the industry. Seems that Zuckerberg created (or helped create) a brilliant product that brings people together. I could be flat out wrong, but that's the perception from my angle...
1 reply
There's a lesson that the government can learn from strategy. What's the difference between operational excellence and strategy? Operational excellence tries to do what every other competitor does more efficiently (i.e. productivity, quality, speed, etc...). Strategy, on the otherhand, is a focused effort on doing a small set of the same things differently, or doing a small set of different things to meet unmet needs of the market. The keyword is "focused" and the key phrase is "small set". In other words, strategy is more about choosing what not to do, than choosing what to do. Good intentions and arrogance can sometimes cause companies to try to do what everyone else is doing better. This is not strategy and can sometimes cause you to be less effective by focusing on too many things. It also causes the government to try to fix all problems in the world and has led to them not being effective at anything. The government's focus on fixing all problems is making it less effective at fixing what needs to be fixed. Since government operates in a world where promises and intentions hold more weight than customers and investors, this focus on over-promises and good intentions leads to re-elections and the problem continues. The government needs to get less involved in the private sector, stop over legislating, focus on eliminating the waste and politics in their own programs, and add more value to their constituents vs. the lobbyist. Their focus on business will continue to make business less competitive and will take their focus off of improving government.
1 reply
I've met Janet, but don't know her personally, and I think you're spot on. I'm a little bias since she's a fellow Illini and die hard Chicago White Sox fan, but she's very approachable. I think somewhat blue collar as evidenced by being a Chicago White Sox fan vs. a yuppie suburban Chicago Cubs fan (South Side!). And has an unorthodox background that hints successful risk taker. Chicago what!
1 reply
I think people who have a chip on their shoulder make others around them better. They force you to be results and outcome oriented by downplaying the status quo or consensus, because they've taken a different path to success and prefer the underdog route. They challenge norms, are thick skinned, don't take things personal and force you to be the same to accept and appreciate them. They don't always give you the warm and fuzzy because many times they have to work harder for what they've achieved, have been on the short end of the stick and understand that uncomfortableness builds character. Most importantly, people with a chip on their shoulder often times make great leaders because they are tough enough to have difficult conversations and can eliminate roadblocks to their people's success because they understand the struggle and can relate. They also typically have alot of stretch because they don't take anything for granted and are never satisfied.
1 reply
This makes me want to buy Walmart stock, because it shows me that they understand what it takes to succeed globally. People who oppose this don't realize how Walmart's success globally is good for the U.S. It probably a waste of my time to explain, because you either get it or you don't.
1 reply
So true! And I think we need to be honest about it, so employees know how they're being judged. In the interview: Tell me how you've exceeded expectations... In the job description: Need to exceed the expectations of customers/clients... During the performance review: Average is no longer meeting expectations, it's exceeding expectations... See how easy it is...
1 reply
Part of what drives these cases is the 2 or 3 year statute of limitations. You get an employee, or attorney, who doesn't care about the implications and sees a chance for a payday over a legal technicality. There's no way overtime was intended for pharma sales reps who call the clients they want, visit the clients they want and, if you have connections, can literally work the hours they want and still grow market share. Speaking of growing market share, how is this not considered sales? You may not sell drugs to patients, but the patients don't decide what drugs they take. The customer is not the patient, it's clearly the physician. They make the decision as to which product is used. The lack of a direct buy/sell relationship doesn't change the fact that physicians are buyers and determine if you're growing market share or not. Even still the administrative or professional exemption would still apply. Exercise of discretion, independent judgement, advanced knowledge in a field of science... Come on! Pharma reps are not Pepsi/Frito sales reps that primarily drop of product and occasionally perform light sales/customer service activities. They primarily find new business and sell. No one's explicitly telling the pharma rep where to go, what to do and who to interact with. Any time a law starts with the word "fair", it means that it's really "unfair" for the high performers. I'm a registered Independent, but thank God for a Conservative leaning Supreme Court...
1 reply
Great metric. Revenues are a more accurate reflection of employee contributions. Earnings relect more management decisions. We don't really expect employees, especially hourly, to cut costs and sacrifice revenues at the expense of earnings. What are they going to do (fire themselves, cut their wages and benefits or outsource a function)? Employees just need to just produce. Management should be more concerned with eliminating waste. Earnings can get complicated and can be a higher level concept.
1 reply
To get discretionary effort: - employees have to feel their work is a reflection of them personally - employees have to have ownership and accountability for the outcomes - employees must go beyond just getting instructions, following directions and completing tasks - employees have to feel that their work is accomplishing a goal, solving a problem, or making a difference for a cause that matters to them This can come automatically by hiring the right person into the right job, and TADAH - self-motivation. Most often you need to design and structure your work environment in a way that ties employees to something bigger than just getting the job done. It has to be consistently assessed and communicated in interviews, onboarding, training, performance/talent management, compensation/rewards, etc... It has to be ingrained in your company's culture and it has to really matter.
1 reply
I agree it's difficult for companies to grasp the value. Similar to Candy's point, I worked for a company that lost 9/80s because the EVP called for someone and they were on their Friday off. Like I said it's about defining expectations and rewards beforehand. Most companies can't do this because they don't know what they want from employees. But if they need something and you were unavailable to deliver, now it's a performance problem. This concept forces proactiveness and intense planning. You can't expect this to work if you expect your employees to be admin assistants that know what you think and pick up your pen when you drop it. Unfortunately I think most leaders still view their employees as property who are available when they have needs, as opposed to beings who want to deliver results, have purpose and be tied to the overall goals of the organization. They want someone to tend to them vs. deliver results.
1 reply
It's the whole concept of defining expectations and the resulting intrinsic/extrinsic rewards beforehand. It's like, "Hey Josh, by the end of the 1st quarter I need you to: - Develop and gain buy-in on a new talent management process. Work with IT and HRIS to get the system implemented. Roll it out and train leadership. We go live on 4/16." On top of my day to day recruiting, labor relations, employee relations, etc..., I know what's expected of me for the next couple of months. If I complete the talent management process in 6 weeks, I can potentially check e-mails and take calls from home and be in the office on an as needed basis. Working from home for 2 weeks is a major motivating factor.
1 reply
Throw Jesse Jackson in the NIT Tournament! He makes us look bad...
1 reply
Assuming what he writes is true, this is what balances the employee/employer relationship that so often is perceived to be tilted towards employers. If you don't like the culture/values or how the culture/values have deviated from their original intent due to current leadership, find a better job and tell everyone how you really feel. No need to unionize. It's what makes the world and free markets go round!
1 reply
The problem with performance management processes is that HR created them for bad managers. You know, to force the scrubs to document performance and use something that resembles objectivity to rate people. This is typical of HR, creating processes for low performers instead of removing them. Instead of creating a process, just elimiante managers who don't do performance management, and let the ones who do define the process with HR. Then you'll have a useful tool that facilitates improvement.
1 reply
HRAthletics is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 8, 2012