Category Archives: Inclusion

The Real Game-Changers

Posted on by
5

I can’t stand hiring managers who don’t want to hire moms because they might need to stay home with a sick kid or take an early lunch to catch their fourth-graders play. Both men and women managers have told me they’re not into hiring moms. It doesn’t sit right with me.

Why? I grew up with a single mom. I remember her choosing where to shop based on how many times she’d bounced a check there. I’d hand back stuff at the checkout ’cause they wouldn’t take her check, and we only had enough cash for a few items.

My mom started her own business, paid her mortgage, and raised two kids. It wasn’t perfect, but we made it. Those experiences shape a kid for life. It makes you appreciate what you have when you know you can live with much less.  My mom became hugely successful after I got out of college and my kids only know her as the grandma that has so much.  I can’t even describe to them the struggle, they have no concept.

The moms I bring in are some of the toughest workers on my team.  They come to work, which for many is a refuge of quiet and clean, and do work that is usually less hard than the other jobs they still have to perform that day and night.  They rarely complain, and usually are much better at putting issues into perspective and not freak out.

When I have a rough day, I try to remember that most of my day is done, but theirs won’t be until they hit the pillow. Old people and moms are the most disrespected of the working class. I swear by that. They are the most underutilized workers of our generation. A woman takes a few years off to raise a kid and somehow she’s now worthless and has no skills.

I don’t even want to write this post because I feel like I’m giving away a recipe to a secret sauce.  All these national recruiting companies are hiring the youngest, prettiest college grads they can find to work for them, and they mostly fail in the recruiting industry. Moms find this industry rather easy as comparable to what they are used to doing.

The real recruiting secret? Moms. They’re the main ingredient that makes it work.

I Love a Rivalry!

Posted on by
Reply

I’m all about it – winning, competing, the buzz, and yeah, even losing. Losing keeps you caring about winning.

Not everyone sees it like that, though. Some think we should all just get along and that having rivals is old news.

But here’s my take – real competition with rivals pushes us to be better than we thought we could be. Without that push, we’d never hit our top performance.

The snag with rivals at work is it can get ugly real quick if it’s not handled right. That’s why some folks say we don’t need rivals in society.

A badly managed rivalry, especially at work, can wreck the vibe faster than anything else. It turns into a “me against them” deal, even when ‘them’ is just another part of ‘us’!

But, if done right, rivalries can light a fire under leaders and teams, taking them to some crazy high performance levels. External rivals, like competitors, bring that extra kick. Those are the rivalries we love – kicking the competition’s butt!

Internal rivals can be just as motivating, maybe even more because it’s real. Your rival is someone you know, or at least more than your competition.

This relationship with an internal rival is where the energy comes from, both good and bad. We hope these internal rivalries drive both sides to greatness, but it doesn’t always pan out that way.

Usually, internal rivals end up trying to outdo each other, when what we really want is both sides reaching greatness and cheering each other on. I used to think it wasn’t doable when I was a young leader.

One side wins, one side loses. That’s a rivalry.

But over time, I’ve seen that the best leaders figure out ways for healthy rivalries, getting everyone to back each other up and celebrate together. It’s about plenty – there’s enough success for all of us. As you succeed, and your co-workers succeed, that success lifts us all.

I first saw this in college sports. A coach taught us to push each other as rivals in practice when it helps us be our best. But when it’s game time, we stick together to reach our goal of winning. It’s about the team.

So, leaders, when you’re setting up internal rivalries, keep in mind that concept of plenty and togetherness. It’s about me, until it’s about we. The leader’s got to show us where that line is.

Are we witnessing the death of Diversity Equity, and Inclusion?

Posted on by
4

This isn’t a political rant, so I’m sorry to disappoint if that’s what you’re looking for. This is a professional HR conversation about something we have historically owned in organizations from a responsibility/leadership standpoint. I’ll tell you that over the past five years, the larger the organization, the more the C-suite has taken on this responsibility/leadership standpoint.

Many reports recently have been about major corporations cutting their DEI budgets and staff. Most of these are coming from tech companies who have been hit hard by rate increases and find themselves desperate to cut any non-revenue generating expenses, on top of major headcount reductions across almost all functions. So, it’s not super surprising from a business perspective, as when you dig into the full story, they are cutting everything, not just DEI.

Here’s what I know as a seasoned HR professional who has worked for a long time in enterprise-level organizations. Every program in every organization will at some point be under a level of scrutiny to prove its worth to the organization, no matter how moral, ethical, or idealistic it started out as. You might be leading a program in your organization to save the world from disaster, and some CFOs will eventually come to you and want to talk about the budget and financials and their impact on the bottom line. No matter your mission. This is business. The famous Bob Sugar in Jerry Maguire said it best: “This isn’t show friends, this is show business!”

DEI does not get a pass on this reality in the corporate business world.

DEI will not die in 2024. It’s now a staple of every major organization that has a brand they care about on the planet. However, DEI will have to show that it can move past the touchy, feel-good activities and policies it was founded on and make a real financial impact at your specific organization. Therein lies a problem most of us have. We can’t prove this to be a fact. We can find great news stories and university studies that will say DEI has a positive financial impact, but we still have to prove that it can in our organization. This goes way beyond hiring more people of color to hiring more people-of-getting-shit-done, which actually might be people of color, or women, or non-genders, or trans, or come up with your group. We still have to prove this on the financials.

The scrutiny over DEI programs and budgets is no longer some old white dude CEO not believing DEI is important. Many of those have converted, retired, died, or are on their way out. Millennials now run most corporations. Women are already the dominant workforce participants and are over 60% of college grads today. In the next decade, there will be more women CEOs than men.

DEI leaders can no longer pass off failed programs to others in the organization. C-Suites are looking for DEI leaders who will develop, implement, and successfully run inclusive and equitable programs that add to the company’s overall bottom line and financials. We still have way too many corporations hiring DEI leaders who don’t have the chops to run a successful function and obtain the budgets they need to run a successful function.

What we need more of in DEI is people who know how to execute and understand business. Oh wait, haven’t we been saying that about HR leaders for like three decades!?

The DEI Function of the Future?

I truly believe that most organizations will not have any type of DEI function within a decade. Stay with me! Think about what DEI is really all about. Helping us deliver a work environment that is inclusive and conducive to all people being able to deliver their best work. Right now, most big organizations have a Diversity Recruiting function. Why? Because we are awful at recruiting a diverse workforce, so we decided the way to do this is to start another recruiting function.

This means your recruiting function was broken, and instead of fixing it, you decided to start another one. That’s like saying your sales function is broken, and instead of fixing it, let’s just start another sales function but let the broken one keep doing what it was doing! It makes zero sense for a business to do this. Also, tell me if you call the new recruiting function “Diversity Recruiting”, what do you call the old recruiting function? Normal recruiting? White recruiting? You get my point. Separating how diversity from the rest of the organization as a stand-alone function isn’t ideal.

Building DEI throughout the organization across every function the way it should have been from the beginning is ideal. I’m hopeful, with the strides we’ve made to date, with technology, with data, and with a female-dominated workforce and leadership, we’ll no longer need separate DEI functions within organizations. I mean, the ladies will never make the same mistakes the males made in the past, right?

I’m also not naive to the realities of conscious and unconscious bias in organizations and leadership. So, while I’m hopeful organizations will get to the right place, I have yet to see it at scale. Most large organizations today have data showing them exactly where bias is happening, yet very few have the courage to confront it. We can see exactly which hiring managers are biased, but we rarely do anything. DEI functions will remain necessary if we don’t confront the wrongs in our organizations head-on.

Beat me up in the comments – tell me where I got this wrong. Let’s have some civil discourse!

A Christmas Present for Your CEO

Posted on by
Reply

This holiday season, you’ve got the chance to make your CEO’s Christmas wish list come true. It’s time to give them the gift of insights into what they really want from their HR and Talent Acquisition teams.

I created a short survey designed just for CEOs, all about what they wish HR and TA would do more of or start doing. It’s all about improvements, tech stuff, and making magic happen within your organization. They get to rate your HR team’s current performance, spot areas for improvement, and even prioritize the issues they care about most. Psst, CEOs, your secrets are safe with us – this survey is anonymous.

Spread the Joy

So, spread some holiday cheer and share this survey link with your CEO or hook me up with their email.

As HR pros, you have the power to make some serious magic happen. By getting your CEO involved in this survey, you’re not just boosting your own game but helping us all understand what makes CEOs tick across different industries!

I’m making this holiday season all about shaping killer HR strategies. Are you with me? Share the link with your CEO and let’s sprinkle some HR magic together!

Are you chasing shadows?

Posted on by
Reply

Ever heard of the “decline effect”? It’s this quirky psychological phenomenon where the more you try to improve something, the more it starts to decline. That’s what’s happening with Employee Engagement. You can always blame the economy or limited options for employees, but that’s not the full story. There’s a deeper reason behind the decline.

Let’s talk about the obsession with Employee Engagement in the last decade. HR departments went all-in, focusing solely on boosting engagement. We measured and implemented programs. We celebrated the uptick in scores. But then, despite our relentless efforts to push those scores higher, they started dropping again. Blaming managers, employees, or vendors didn’t solve it either.

It’s like buying a house. The first one was perfect. Then came the bigger houses with more space, more to handle, and more problems. Happiness didn’t grow with the size.

We’ve thrown everything into making employees happy—new perks, freebies, and fixes. But there’s a limit. Employees were engaged before this frenzy. Seeking more doesn’t always lead to better results; sometimes, it leads to worse outcomes.

Employee Engagement isn’t about more—it’s about balance. Don’t fall into the trap of endlessly chasing more. It’s a dead-end road that gives you less and less over time. Find a sustainable approach to engagement that doesn’t exhaust your efforts.

What does it mean to be a male leader in today’s business world?

Posted on by
1

This is a complex subject to write about because it’s a hot-button issue for so many. Men still make up 2/3 of Congress. There have only been male US Presidents. Roughly 90% of the Fortune 500 have male CEOs. All that being said, over the past few decades women have made some tremendous strides professionally, and those strides are accelerating.

For every 74 males who receive a college degree today, 100 women receive their degree, and the gap is growing. Men account for 70% of the decline in college enrollment. 50% of women now outearn their male partners. That number was 4% in 1960. Women now hold 50.04% of all jobs in the US (Women in Canada hold 61%). Pay equity is still an issue. In 1980 women were paid 40% less than men. Today that number is 15.5% in some fields, like Software Engineering, pay equity has flipped to favor women over men.

As I said, this is a complex issue because so much work still needs to be done to elevate women. A successful female business owner raised me. When my mother started her business is was rare for women to own businesses. Today over ten million women are business owners.

All of this also doesn’t change the fact that the role of men in work is also drastically changing during this time. Both of these concepts can be true at the same time. The Washington Post recently had an article discussing the issue of these changes to men: Men are lost. Here’s a map out of the wilderness by Christine Emba. Here are some takeaways from the article:

“It is harder to be a man today, and in many ways, that is a good thing: Finally, the freer sex is being held to a higher standard.

Even so, not all of the changes that have led us to this moment are unequivocally positive. And if left unaddressed, the current confusion of men and boys will have destructive social outcomes, in the form of resentment and radicalization.

The truth is that most women still want to have intimate relationships with good men. And even those who don’t still want their sons, brothers, fathers and friends to live good lives.

The old script for masculinity might be on its way out. It’s time we replaced it with something better...

…for all their problems, the strict gender roles of the past did give boys a script for how to be a man…People need codes for how to be human. And when those aren’t easily found, they’ll take whatever is offered, no matter what else is attached.“

What is a good definition of new masculinity?

The phrase “toxic masculinity” gets thrown around too much in today’s world. Yes, there are traits of men that are historically toxic. But it’s also a mind-f*ck we are throwing on heterosexual young men who still hold the majority of roles in our society as men. Don’t act like a “man,” but women are only attracted to you if you act like a “man.”

More from the Washington Post article:

“This is especially compelling in a moment when many young men feel their difficulties are often dismissed out of hand as whining from a patriarchy that they don’t feel part of. For young men in particular, the assumption of a world built to serve their sex doesn’t align with their lived experience, where girls out-achieve them from pre-K to post-graduate studies and “men are trash” is an acceptable joke...

I’m convinced that men are in a crisis. And I strongly suspect that ending it will require a positive vision of what masculinity entails that is particular — that is, neither neutral nor interchangeable with femininity. Still, I find myself reluctant to fully articulate one. There’s a reason a lot of the writing on the crisis in masculinity ends at the diagnosis stage…

“Where I think this conversation has come off the tracks is where being a man is essentially trying to ignore all masculinity and act more like a woman. And even some women who say that — they don’t want to have sex with those guys. They may believe they’re right, and think it’s a good narrative, but they don’t want to partner with them.”

I, a heterosexual woman, cringed in recognition.

“And so men should think, ‘I want to take advantage of my maleness. I want to be aggressive, I want to set goals, go hard at it. I want to be physically really strong. I want to take care of myself.’”

Galloway leaned into the screen. “My view is that, for masculinity, a decent place to start is garnering the skills and strength that you can advocate for and protect others with. If you’re really strong and smart, you will garner enough power, influence, and kindness to begin protecting others. That is it. Full stop. Real men protect other people.”

I like Galloway’s definition of “real men”! Real men protect others because it positively shapes behavior. It’s easy for men to follow.

Many people don’t see this as a crisis. Being a dad of three young men, I try to see the trends before it’s too late. A friend of mine is keen on saying “Idle men are bad business for America.” We are heading down that slippery slope.

Society has gotten comfortable in not supporting men. The view is women need support, but men have had such a historical headstart they don’t need support. All of our young people, regardless of gender, need our support. We should not diminish any of them and their potential in our societal structures. The world needs men who are masculine and care for others as much as the world needs strong, feminine women. These are not competing forces. They should be complimenting forces.

I tried not to make this a gender issue, but it’s complex. In our world today it’s not just male and female anymore. My intent for writing this was to share an insightful article by a really good writer, Christine Emba. I encourage you to read the piece as it goes much deeper than the few pieces I shared here. In the end, we are quickly going down a path that ignores men. While men still hold so much power, we can see a horizon where that won’t be the case. My hope is that women will do a much better job in the next century in holding that power than men did previously.

Skills matter. Experience matters. Performance matters.

Posted on by
3

Skills, skills, skills, skills…

If you’ve been around HR tech for two minutes in the last five years, “skills” is basically all you’ve heard. Well, okay, “skills” and “AI.” The HR Tech community is jamming skills down your throat like a new pharmaceutical drug that cures narcissism.

Why do we feel “skills” are so important?

  1. Hiring by skill is thought to eliminate bias. It’s not about relationships, or what school you went to, or that you went to school at all, or what color your skin is. If you have the skill to do the job, you should be hired to do the job.
  2. As a concept in organizations, skills seem to connect a lot of dots. We can measure skills and make a giant inventory of all the skills we have, and our all-knowing executive team can tell what skills we need in the future, and we can build those skills to be ready.

In theory, hiring and promoting people based on skill makes a lot of sense. In reality, it’s super hard to pull off. It’s difficult to truly assess someone’s skill in most areas. We just don’t have enough black-and-white skills measures that truly differentiate nor do we have the ability to build all the skills we believe we need.

Does “experience” matter?

The folks on the skills side of the fence want you to believe experience is an outdated concept being sold to you by “the man.” Or, more specifically, by men who have traditionally controlled the world in so many ways. Some of that is also true. But that doesn’t mean that experience doesn’t matter. It does.

You are about to go to prison for a crime you didn’t commit. You can choose between two lawyers. Both passed the bar to demonstrate their “skill” as an attorney. For one, this will be their first case. For the other, it will be their 2,000th case. Who will you choose? You are about to go into a life-saving brain surgery. You have two surgeons to choose from. Both of whom passed their boards at the highest level. One has performed over 1,000 of this specific operation. One has done 50. Which one will you choose?

There is a piece of this skills revolution that also is veiled in ageism. One of the reasons “skills” has risen is that young people are sick of old people getting hired and promoted over them. Old people who might not have the same skill level, but definitely have more experience. We can’t just say stop hiring them because they’re old, but we can say stop hiring them because I have higher “skill.” So, if it’s only about skill, we eliminate the ageism bias.

Your experience actually does matter.

Wait, what about performance?

Here’s where I get a bad feeling in my stomach around “skills.” It’s not just that a person has a certain skill, but how they perform in that skill. The reason we say “experience” doesn’t matter because there are dozens of academic studies that have shown that when we measure new hires and we take a look at their resumes and their previous job experience, there is very little correlation between where they worked previously and the job they had, to success in the new job and company.

That isn’t because experience doesn’t matter. It’s because high-performing experience matters!

Therein lies our problem. We can’t measure the performance of someone’s past job.

Let’s get back to our lawyer and doctor examples. What if I now told you that our lawyer, who has tried over 2,000 cases, actually lost every case? You would obviously try the inexperienced lawyer! Same with our doctor. The doctor who had 1,000 brain surgeries under their belt has a success rate of 10%. But our 50 case doctor has a success rate of 90%!

But wait, what if I tell you the “experienced” doctor only takes on the most difficult last-chance cases? And the less experienced doctor is given the “easy” cases where the vast majority of patients are thought to recover. Does that make a difference? You see how complicated “experience” as a factor can be.

Performance matters a great deal!

If you are looking to hire the best talent, it’s not only about skill. It’s about choosing individuals who have the skill to do that job at a baseline, then looking at their experience and their performance, and probably their intrinsic motivation. This is why a job sample is the number one predictor of a new hire performing well on the job. If they can actually do the job, successfully, then it stands to show they will probably be successful when we hire them. Although, even that isn’t guaranteed. We then add in factors like culture, leadership, peer support, etc.

It turns out hiring is really hard.

So, why is everyone saying the future of talent is skills?

I believe it’s because this is something we can control. It’s tangible and feels like something that can work. I can try and measure for skill. I can assess and build for skill. It seems obtainable, and it seems like something better than our past hiring based on experience.

In reality, hiring and promoting should have always been about skill. And experience. And performance. I want to hire highly skilled people that have amazing experiences and have performed in their previous jobs at a very high level.

What I don’t want to do is blindly hire and promote based on someone’s ability to demonstrate they can do a bunch of random skills. A job and performing in that job is not just about doing a bunch of random skills. That simplifies what employees do down too far. People and work are much more complex than just skills.

Skills. Experience. Performance. I want to hire the complete package. Be careful selling “skills” as a strategy to your executives. Most executives have great experience and high performance, and they actually believe that matters. Because it does.

I identify as Age-fluid!

Posted on by
5

I would love to take credit for coming up with “Age-fluid,” but I’m stealing it from Chip Conley, who I saw speak at Transform a few weeks back. Chip was talking about age diversity and how only 14% of the F500 actually measure age diversity and how this is becoming a major issue in corporate America.

Now, if you would talk to my wife, she would tell you I’ve identified as “age-fluid” most of my life. I’m 53, but my humor is mostly that of a 12-year-old boy! Also, I refuse to believe that I still can’t do most of the stuff I could 20 years ago. While my body feels like it’s 80 some days, I still think I hang on the court with folks half my age.

For hundreds of years, we’ve known of this phenomenon where you have a mental age and a physical age. I’ve already said my “mental” age is way lower than my physical age, but it’s important to truly understand the impact this has on the diversity of our organizations. Because we also see the opposite. I’ve met many young people who were wise beyond their years and seemed to have an “old soul.”

Most organizations and hiring managers are biased toward those of a higher age. I don’t think that is shocking to anyone. Old people are still the ones we can be biased against, and no one thinks it’s wrong. We make jokes in meetings about someone’s advanced age all the time, and no one thinks anything of it. But in reality, this is no difference from someone making an old person’s joke than if they were making a similar joke against someone’s gender or ethnicity.

I actually love the concept of being Age-fluid.

If someone in our society can be gender-fluid and decide from day to day which gender they believe they are, then I can decide what age I believe I am. I mean there are advantages to every age. Being young is cool, but it also sucks because you don’t know what you don’t know. Being old can suck physically, but usually you’re also more confident in where you’re at in life. You know who you are and you’ve come to grips with it. Being a child is magical, but you don’t understand that.

Today I feel like I’m 36.

Why 36?

Hmmm…well, at 36, you can still feel great physically, but you also have enough time on this rock to have a bit of learning. I won’t call it wisdom, but you’ve made enough mistakes to mostly know how not to make them again. Doesn’t mean you won’t, but you know the path you’re going down and how it will most likely end.

At 36, you aren’t looking at the end yet. You also aren’t looking back at the “good old days.” You feel like you still have more life ahead of you, than behind you, and you’re still young enough to truly feel like you haven’t written the script for your life yet. You still have promise, and you’ve made a bunch of progress on where you want to go.

Yeah, today, I’m 36. I’m also about 12 for a few seconds at at time, depending on what memes my other 12-year-old friends are sending me!

What age do you want to identify as today and why? Hit me in the comments.

The US has Relatively Low Rates of Hiring Discrimination. But you don’t believe it!

Posted on by
1

Do we have hiring issues in the US? Yes. Are many of those issues really bad? Yes. Is the US worse than most other countries? Hmmm…

There was a meta-field study done with over 200,000 job applicants (that’s a massive data sample) in 9 counties in Europe and North America. The study found there is hiring discrimination in every country, but some countries are worse than others:

What did the study find?

– The USA has one of the lower rates of discrimination while France and perhaps also Sweden have very high levels.

– If you travel the world, the findings are very surprising. If you have just sat your butt in the US, this is hard for you to comprehend with the US’s history of slavery, and you probably find this surprising. Turns out, many other parts of the world still act like discrimination isn’t happening and ignore they have a problem.

– Capitalism, in fact, is likely to predict less discrimination in hiring. Again, competitive hiring practices actually help decrease discrimination in the labor market.

The authors of this study are Lincoln Quillian, Anthony Heath, Devah Pager, Arnfinn H. Midtbøen, Fenella Fleischmann, and Ole Hexel. A very diverse group of academics from some of the top educational institutions in the world. Here is what they had to say about the study:

“National histories of slavery and colonialism are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for a country to have relatively high levels of labor market discrimination. Some countries with colonial pasts demonstrate high rates of hiring discrimination, but several countries without extensive colonial pasts (outside Europe), such as Sweden, demonstrate similar levels. Likewise, the lower rates of discrimination against minorities in the United States than we find for many European countries seem contrary to expectations that emphasize the primacy of connection to slavery in shaping the contemporary level of national discrimination. These results do not suggest that slavery and colonialism do not matter for levels of discrimination, rather they indicate that they matter in more complex ways than suggested by theories that posit simple, direct influences of the past on current discrimination.”

And

“Low discrimination in Germany could be a result of distinctive hiring practices in Germany: Employees typically submit far more extensive background information at initial application than in most other countries—including, for instance, high school transcripts and reports from apprenticeships (Weichselbaumer 2016). This may reduce the tendency of employers to assume lower skills and qualifications among nonwhite applicants, which is one potential source of discrimination. If so, this suggests the importance of high levels of individual information about applicants as a method to mitigate discrimination (c.f., Wozniac 2015; Auspurg et al. 2018).”

So, France and Sweden are the most Discriminatory Countries in HIring?!

Well, not exactly. They are the most of this study of nine countries.

I would bet you would see higher rates of hiring discrimination in places like Japan, China, South Africa, etc. Why? How many non-Japanese do you see on the Japanese national team? How many non-Chinese? One non-Chinese, an American snowboarder, was in the winter Olympics, and that was the first one in their history. Now take a look at the US and the other European countries. All of them have multiple people from other countries on their national teams. Is that hiring? Nope, but it shows a willingness to welcome and evolve people from other countries in a very transparent way.

Just because other similar Capitalist countries tend to be more discriminatory in their hiring practices than the US also doesn’t make us better. There are still massive improvements that need to be made. I point all of this out because you will never see this type of study highlighted by the mainstream media most HR and TA leaders and pros read. This won’t be on CNN and Forbes. We love to act like every other country is so much better. They aren’t, and we aren’t. We are all struggling with getting better and closer to the same than most of us realize.