Category Archives: Retention

When is Gutting Payroll the Right Thing?

Posted on by
Reply

HR-Sports Post Alert!

Many of you probably cared less about the recent trade between Major League Baseball’s Miami Marlins and Toronto Blue Jays (check out the details here) – suffice to say the Marlins were able to decrease their annual payroll from $188M to around $35M in one giant trade!  Classic rebuilding type of move, right?  People/fans are saying the Marlins shouldn’t do this to their fans and they gave up on some great talent.  Let’s take a look back at recent Florida/Miami Marlins history:

1997 – Won the World Series (payroll at $47.8M)

By 1999 – they gutted their roster of high priced talent for younger up and coming talent (payroll at $15.2M)

2003 – Won the World Series (Payroll at $76.9M)

By 2006 – they gutted their roster again (payroll at $15M)

The difference the Marlins and large market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox is that the Marlins can’t make giant financial talent mistakes without something major happening in the next year or two.  They took some gambles over the past couple of years trying to assemble a world series capable team (they’ve done this before – twice!) and it didn’t work out.  So, change needed to happen – rebuilding needed to begin.  Any fan of the Marlins could have predicted this.

So – what does this have to do with HR – or my company?

There is some huge wisdom in how the Marlins manage their talent finances that we can all learn from.  Let’s make no mistake about this – this is not Moneyball, in fact he might be the opposite of what Billy Beane had envisioned.  But, many would argue that the Marlins version, had worked out better, certainly from a results standpoint.  My question is – could this type of talent financing work in a corporate setting, or in your company?

Think about it that for a minute.

How could you make this happen?  I tend to think about it in terms of your high priced – A talent – not necessarily your executives.  What if your company was looking to drive and increase in market share in your industry.  Your main competitor currently had 50% of the market, while you only had 25%, with the other 25% spread amongst competitors 3-10.  Your goal was to grow your market share to 35% in 3 years – a large task for most companies in most industries.  Conventional corporate wisdom would work this way – Step 1 – we hire away one of competitor 1’s executives to tell how they did it; Step 2 – The new executive brings over as many people as he can get, usually starting with a solid player from competitor 1’s marketing department; Step 3 – you re-brand and spend a crap ton of money; Step 4 – 3 years later you’re at 28% market share with less margins. Ouch.

If the Marlins management ran your company here is what they would do:

Step 1 – Go hire the top sales person from your main competitors – all of your competitors and pay them double what they are making.

Step 2 – Go directly after every single account the competitors have with the inside knowledge you just gained in your sales staff.

Step 3 – Build their market share to 40% within 24 months

Step 4 – Systematically let go of all of their high priced sales people – losing about 5% of their market share.

Step 5 – At 3 year mark be at their 35% market share with roughly the same payroll as they had 3 years prior.

I mean it could happen that way!

We/HR/Management tend to believe we have to keep our people on forever – even after they stop being rock stars, but are still getting paid like rock stars.  The Marlins have said, ‘look this is a dual benefit play – we get our championships and the players gets a giant check, then we both move on’.  It’s not “traditional” so everyone tends to think its wrong.  I don’t know if it’s right, but I’m sure their are some Chicago Cub fans that would take 2 World Series championships in the last 15 years!

Give Your Employees Permission

Posted on by
1

It’s pretty widely accepted that referral hires are the best hires that most companies make.  Pretty easy math equation on why :

Good Employee + wanting to stay a good employee + employee’s reputation = usually good people they recommend to HR/Recruiting to go after and hire

I’m like Einstein when it comes to HR math!

But, there is one piece to the equation that most all companies struggle with.  We don’t get enough of these referrals!

So, we look at our referral process. Then we go out and look at our collateral material associated with our referral program. Then we look at using technology to automate our referral program. Then we look at the numbers again – and again – we still don’t have enough of these hires…

There is still one thing we keep forgetting to do – it’s simple – which is probably why we “assume” we don’t need to do it.  We/You need to give your employees permission to do share this with their personal and professional networks – each and every time you want a referral for a certain position.

You know what we do really well in HR?  Roll-outs! We do!  We can roll-out the shit of just about any program you can think of.  We love roll-outs. We live for roll-outs! You know what we do really bad in HR?  Continuing programs after we roll them out!  The truth sucks because it’s true.

How can you get more referrals?

1.  Have a program (don’t laugh, too many still don’t)

2. When you want a referral – ask for it – each and every time.  (We tend to roll out the referral program and assume each time we post a position our employees will just naturally share it with potential referrals – they don’t)

3.  When asking for a referral specifically “Give Permission” to your employees to share this with their Facebook friends, their LinkedIn Professional network and their Tweeps. (Specifically)

BEST PRACTICE ALERT: Create email groups by department, when you get an opening for that department send an email to the group with your standard referral “permission” language – plus one other item – an easy cut and paste hyperlink that they can post or send to their networks with specific instructions on where to paste/send it to.

Giving someone “permission” to do something strikes a trigger in their mind to actually do it – it has something to do with psychology or something, I don’t know I’m an HR pro, but suffice to say it works!  Think about it, like you were a 5 year old.  Your parents tell you, you can’t ride your Green Machine in the street.  Then, one day, Mom is out getting her nails done and your Dad sees you doing circles in the driveway on that Green Machine and he goes “Hey, why don’t you take that into the street?!”  What do you do?  You immediately take that bad boy for a ride in the street! Dad “gave you permission” and you ran with it!

Referrals might be a “little” different but I’ve actually had conversation with employees who’ve said “Oh! It’s OK if I send this to my friends and family?”  Like our posting was sort of corporate secret or something!  We shouldn’t assume.  You’ll be surprised.

Now – go give your employees permission to get you some referrals!

 

 

Management is Judged by its Second Act

Posted on by
Reply

I have a new HR Crush and his name is Ben Brooks – check him out, the dude is a crazy smart HR dude from NYC (VP of Human Capital Performance at Marsh).  I saw him present at HR Tech about his company and the cool stuff they’ve done, are doing, etc., and he used this quote (he might not be the original, but after an extensive Google search I couldn’t find anyone better to attribute it to – Ben says his CEO at Marsh said something similar and he adapted it):

“Management is judged by its second act.”

Simple enough, but very powerful.  Think about that for a moment.  It would seem most leadership/management that I run into seem to want me to judge them based on their first act, right?  It makes sense, any time a new leadership person/team comes into an organization there is always some low hanging fruit that needs to be taken care of.  We always talk about how hard it is coming in as a new leader, but there are also some easy pieces to being a new leader.

New leaders have a small window of time where they get to point out all the obvious crap that’s wrong, like they’re some super genius consultant, and everyone thinks they’re brilliant.  They then go around fixing that stuff (the low hanging fruit) and then they live off of that for as long as possible.  Leadership lore is filled with “turn-around” specialist.  Leaders who come in, turn around a company, then take off to do it again, and again, for other companies.  They sell themselves as specialist, when in reality – they are just coming in and doing what everyone knows what needs to be done, they just don’t have the guts/influence/backing to do it.

The hard part of leadership is to perform your “second act”.  What do you do once all the easy stuff, the obviously broken stuff, is taken care of?  Yeah, that is hard!

Want to help out your C-suite?  Go to them with this concept and start helping them design their second act.  You might first have to help them define their first act! Let’s face it, leadership is a bit like politics, the more you market what you’ve already done, it helps buy you time to go and do some more stuff – but you still have to let people know what you’ve done!   Once you get act two drafted, you begin the marketing process for that as well.  It goes a little like: “Hey, we’ve done all this great work in Act 1, so now we are getting ready for our next stage and Act 2” – but with specifics, don’t really say Act 1 and Act 2 or you’ll sound like an idiot!

Act 2 won’t be easy – remember you’ve taken care of the easy crap.  Act 2 is going to be defining and it’s really where you get to understand, as a leader, am I any good at this leadership thing. At building a vision. At delivering something that moves an organization forward.  Most leaders never get to Act 2 because Act 1 is so gratifying they can’t pull themselves out of the theater, they just keep running the same show over and over, and many companies keep buying seats.

Have you begun your Second Act?

9 Wishes for New HR & Talent Professionals

Posted on by
Reply

My favorite part of the fall conference season is the fact that I get to meet a ton of HR and Talent Pros and connect.  Of those, the ones I have the most fun talking to is the newbies!   They are still in that point in their career where HR is fun and exciting and they get jazzed up talking about the stuff we (older, I mean experienced HR Pros) no longer find as fascinating.   I usually find myself answering questions – you know the type – “how would you handle…?” or “what would you do…?”, etc.  Which gives me an opportunity to tell them here’s how I screwed it up when I first started, and here’s how I handle it now – which are usually very different.  So, as I reflect on this season I’ve come away with a few wishes for my fellow HR and Recruiting Pros who are just joining us on this journey.

I wish new…

 …HR pros would unlock the doors to their departments – wait – change that – actually take off the doors all together.

 …Corporate recruiters would make more outgoing calls then they get incoming calls.

 …HR pros would spend more than 50% of their time out of their office/cube walking around talking to employees and hiring managers.

 …Recruiters would never feel like it’s their responsibility to staff their companies – it’s not – it’s your leaders of your departments – you’re just the tool they use to accomplish it – but they’ve got to own it – ultimately they make the final decision, not you, which means it’s there responsibility.

 …HR pros never learn “soft” HR math.

 …Recruiters learn how to recruit before they learn how to build recruitment processes.

 …HR pros spend their first month (or more) in position actually working in operations, marketing and finance – it will make you a better HR pro!

 …Recruiters would build relationships with their main competition’s recruiters – this will make you better as well – and you won’t be giving away the corporate secrets!

 …HR pros would build more influence in their organizations than more process – one is easier to do – which is why you don’t do the other.

I guess I wish all of this stuff, because it’s stuff that I had to learn over time – and if I could have one wish for our newbie HR and Talent peers it would be they could have all of this knowledge up front as they come in the door.  Because I can’t have that wish – I’ll throw out a challenge to my HR brothers and sisters – take a new HR pro under your wing – it doesn’t have to be in your organization – just find one and do it.  Here’s what you’ll find – they will help you more than you’ll probably help them – helping a newbie will energize yourself, help you slow down on your own decision making and reflect on what you’re doing and its importance – and because of your experience it will allow you to go out and make some adjustments to your own shop that will have great impact to your business!

A Conversation: with your Least Engaged Employee

Posted on by
4

You: “Hey, Lee (Least Engaged Employee) – how are you doing?”

Lee: “You know, working hard, hanging in there, one day at a time” (winky face)

You: “We need to talk.” (this is what all HR Pros say, it’s #1 in the “What to say when you’re in HR” handbook)

Lee: “About what?” Now, somewhat nervous because HR never talks about positive stuff.

You: “You know, it just doesn’t seem like you’re real excited about your job, or the company, I’m not sure.” Classic HR beating around the bush – also in the handbook

Lee: “No, really (deadpanned) I love it here.” Voice trailing off as he looks for a way out of this nightmare

You: “Well, that’s a relief because we love having you here.” Being able to effectively lie to yourself and employees – Handbook page 27.

**************************

It’s funny because it’s to close to the truth for too many HR Pros and Hiring Managers.  We want engagement, but we have no idea how to talk to a person who isn’t engaged.  Let’s try one more script between you and Lee.

**************************

You: “Lee, I need to talk to you about something that I’m very concerned about.” Set the tone immediately – it is serious – Lee’s position hangs in the balance.

Lee: “Sure. What is it?” No one ever turns down talking with HR – what choice do they really have…

You: “I’ve noticed that your lack of engagement with your job, with the organization is starting down a path that isn’t going to end well.”

Lee: “What do you mean!? I love my job, and the company.” This is what low engagement employees say, because they aren’t showing it.

You: “No you don’t.  If you did, I and your manager would be seeing this out of you: example, example, example.”

You: “So, we have 3 choices: 1. Continued lying to each other until we fire you; 2. Continue lying to each other until you leave on your own; or 3. We fix it.”

Lee: “I’m not lying – let’s fix it.” Lee just told you 2 lies in that small statement – Lee is lying and Lee probably won’t fix it without major help

You: “So, tell me why are you no longer engaged?”  Then shut up, wait, wait an uncomfortably long amount of time for Lee to speak.

Lee: “Lame reason I think you want to hear to get you off my back, and back to my desk so I can update my resume on Monster.”

You: “No, really, why?” More uncomfortable silence

Lee: “Something closer to the truth you both already knew.”

You: “Now, let’s come up with how we can turn this ship around.”

You and Lee: “Plans, promises, measures, next meetings followup dates, morning hugs, etc.”

***********************

We tend to treat our least engaged employees like a virus.  Stay away, wash our hands of it and hope it goes away.  Rarely do we ever really go out and “engage” our least engaged employees.  Seems like too much work, too much time, too much of headache.  It is.  It is also the only way to move in the direction you want to go, the fastest.  That direction might be to turn the employee around, or it might be to kick them off your buss – either way – the conversation must be had appropriately to move in that direction.

Have you talked to Lee lately?

The Law of Diminishing Title Return

Posted on by
1

“I don’t care what you call me – my title is meaningless!”

Have you heard this?  If you’re in HR long enough – you’ll hear this a number of times over your career.  You know who says this?  People making a lot of money, people who’ve been out of work and are just happy to have a job, or people who’ve been around so long they actually really don’t care anymore!

Titles are important to people – although that is not the politically correct thing to say – so hardly ever hear the truth when it comes to titles.  Don’t think titles are important in your organization – try changing some – try going, let’s say, backwards in title!  You’ll see how important it is.  The issue I see in many organizations is the concept of Title Creep.  When for whatever reason, usually the business not doing well so you don’t have money to give out, the organization starts giving out titles over raises (“Hey, Janie, doesn’t look like we have any budget money to give you your 3% raise this year, but gosh golly you sure our important to us, so we want to “promote” you to Manager!).  And you know what? That crap works for a little while! Because people love titles!

Just look at banks – they’re really funny about titles!  Everyone at a bank – and I mean everyone – is either a Vice President or a President!  Banks really have screwed up the title thing worse than any other industry.  You will see banks now that the person’s title will be Vice President – Manager of Recruiting, or Sr. Vice President – Director of Human Resources – and I wonder to myself – “So, what is it – VP or Director!? What are you?”  This is where titles go very wrong and stop having value to the individual.

The main problem with title creep is when it’s used and people feel because they have, or have had, a certain title that means they should get that title in another organization.  I interviewed a sharp person a while back who had graduated from college in HR and over the course of about 6 years went from HR Generalist, to HR Manager, to HR Director, to VP of HR in the same organization. Impressive, right?  But wait, there’s more to the story!  She lost her position do to an organizational change (that’s what we call getting fired today so the GenY’s and millennials still feel it’s not their fault) and was struggling finding another “executive” role in HR.  I asked her a couple of questions:

1. From your beginning as an HR Generalist to your final role as VP of HR, how many direct reports did you pick up?

              A: 1

2. From your HR Gen role to VP role – what responsibilities did you pick up?

             A: Well…I still do everything, but I also am now more strategic.

Oh, boy.  So, I got to share with her some advice. Stop looking for an “executive” role, find a solid HR Gen or HR Manager role – you my friend are no VP of HR!   Title Creep really hurt her.

In HR we have a major role in this concept of Diminishing Returns in regards to Titles, and that role should be to stop handing out titles like it’s candy from the bowl on the receptionist’s desk at the front door.  We should protect titles and not allow them to diluted, because most people do like them, and they can be a valuable tool in your compensation tool box, but only if you don’t use them very often.

BTW – best title ever is from K Swiss Kenny Powers commercials!

Talent is a Zero Sum Game

Posted on by
1

There is a mathematical concept called Zero-Sum, what is says is basically where one person, organization, etc. will gain, there is an equal loss by another person, organization, etc. of that exact same amount.   An example might be market share of a corporation – if GM has 17% market share of U.S. car buyers, and it gains 1%, to 18% total market share – the 1% came at the expense of their competition.  GM didn’t miraculously grow/build/birth 1% of new car buyers out of thin air. It’s a Zero-Sum game, their competition loses the exact same number of car buyers that GM gained – you rob Peter to pay Paul. 

Hiring Managers never get this!

Talent and HR Pros feel this all the time.  Hard to fill requisition, limited talent pool and the hiring managers makes you feel like you should be able to go down to the vending machine and just select C-3 and another Software Developer will fall down into your hands, ready to work! (by the way C-3 in my office is Peanut Butter M&M’s which seem to make everything better at almost any time of the day!) But it’s not that easy, right?!  Talent is a Zero-Sum game.  Now, I know my OD and Training friends will be all – “No it’s not! We can grow and build new Talent!”  Not really – not in the time I need it – which is NOW – or – YESTERDAY!  That’s my timing – it’s not 3 months or a year down the road.

That’s are main problem in Talent in 99.9% of organizations, are lack of organizational understanding of the simple concept of Zero-Sum.  If organizations really got this concept they would have robust, funded, succession planning programs that would be attempting to build future talent, to expand their internal talent pools,  but we don’t.  Less than 1% of organizations in the world really fund succession the way it needs to be funded if you want to be self sufficient in terms of talent.  Organizationally, you’re paying either way – you either pay the money up front in terms of talent attraction, or you can pay it on the backside with retention and training – so why does almost every company choose the front side of this equation?  I think most choose the talent attraction spend because we (HR/Talent/OD) have done a horrible job of working with our finance teams to come up with a plan that shows our organization there’s a better way to spend our money.  We haven’t given our leadership a better option – so we/they continue to choose to do more of the same.

Some could argue that we are currently in a less than Zero-Sum game with our employee demographics.  We have more of our population reaching retirement age, than we have potential workforce reaching the age/education/experience to replace our leaving workforce.  But, even at zero – you still see the problem we are in, it’s never ending, it’s just how do you choose to play the game.  I like thinking about our HR/Talent problems in terms of mathematics, because it gives me the feeling there are actually solutions and it’s just a matter of building the solution/process.   I think most will argue that the solution is to do all of it in combination – some attraction, some succession, some training – which I agree with, but I think the percentages of your current combination need to change if you truly want to get off the treadmill.

 

LinkedIn’s Talent Brand Index Could be Trouble!

Posted on by
5

Ok, let’s be as transparent as possible:

1. I’m pissed at LinkedIn like a scorned girlfriend because they won’t let me buy their corporate version LinkedIn Recruiter (not that I need it – I know you can do x-ray searches or use a great product like Scavado for a fraction of the price and get the same info. – but it’s the racialist mentality of it all – “No, you can’t have it because your a bad staffing company and we only give it to good corporate recruiters) – see – scorned girlfriend.

2.  I use LinkedIn every day. Mostly to recruit employees from one company to another company, and someone pays me to do this.

3. I like using LinkedIn – solid U/I and a great recruiting tool, inexpensive.  (we call that a triple threat)

OK – On with the show!

Last week LinkedIn announced a new product at their annual Talent Connect conference, called Talent Brand Index or BrandConnect – or something like that – as you can see I wasn’t invited (which I’m actually not pissed about – I mean I’d like to go – but it’s not like the scorned girlfriend thing). Basically this is a tool/measure of how much your brand is engaged on the LinkedIn site – but it has a number of components baked into the algorithm that make this less than black and white.  I have 3 opinions of this announcement that range in 3 very different psychosis:

Pessimistic View (LinkedIn Haters)

Holy crap – this is just another way for LinkedIn to hold companies hostage over their brand!  Basically, the Talent Brand Index, if I want a higher score, forces me to encourage my employees to get on LinkedIn – the more employees I have on, the higher score I get.  Also, the more products I buy from LinkedIn, the higher my score.  I don’t want my employees to be on LinkedIn because my competition will be pimping them non-stop and I’m bound to lose some.  Plus, they keep using the words “Brand Engagement” that invariably will get confused by people as my “employee engagement” when it really has no correlation.

Optimistic View (LinkedIn Lovers)

This tool is great at showing me where I can increase my “engagement” of my brand within the product.  We trust our employees and want them to network professionally and share our brand with as many people as possible – it’s good for them, it’s good for us.  We believe we have a great place to work and increasing our brand engagement on LinkedIn will only help our recruiting efforts.  Plus, this new tool really, for the first time, gives us great insight to how people outside of our company feel and interact with our employment brand.  It’s great data!

Pragmatic View (The Middle)

If you have a “great” work environment and strong employment brand (let’s say 10% of companies) this is wonderful.  You have low turnover, high employee engagement – this will only help you recruit more folks – and more employees you have on won’t hurt you because they aren’t leaving you.  The other 90% of companies could see some impact from this – if they go out and encourage their employees to actively get on LinkedIn, in hopes of raising your Brand Index score. You have pockets that aren’t pretty and you’ll have folks that get picked off by your competition.  This will then cause you more work.  It’s not to say those people wouldn’t leave on their own – some will, regardless, but I don’t want to throw them a job fair in the lobby of our building. Reality check – most HR shops/companies don’t have the people, the money or the desire to really move the needle on increasing their “LinkedIn Brand Index” score – so this will be a non-issue for most.

Final thought –

I would like those companies who really think this is a great deal to do just 1 thing for me. Will you do that?  Today, go to your CIO and tell them you are going to have the entire Software Development team put their profiles up on LinkedIn – because you want to raise your Brand Index score.  Then let me know the results – if you still have a job, or are conscious.

 

The 3 Places You’re Going in your Career

Posted on by
Reply

You know that Career Path you’re currently on – I want to tell you to not get so concerned and uptight about where it’s going because the reality is – it will only go in 3 directions.  I was talking with a young HR pro last week and this person was super concerned about his career path – you know the concern – “I need to be an executive by 35 or my life is a failure” – and he was looking to me for advice.  So, I gave him my career path advice – get fired a couple of times and have your Mom promote you to President! Seems easy enough, I don’t know what all the concern is about.

The reality is – you have only 3 places you will go in your career path:

1. You’ll stay in position (No Move)

2. You’ll get promoted (Move Up)

3. You’ll get fired (Move you don’t want)

Someone might be thinking –  wait – you can have lateral movement or be demoted.  Demotion is being fired, you just couldn’t take the hint and leave.  Lateral move I consider staying in position or no move – all you did was change the color of your office, it’s the same thing.

I’ve gotten to the point in my career where I talk to younger people – just starting out in their career and I say stupid stuff like- “Ugh, these GenY and Millenials don’t get it – you have to put in your time and prove yourself – they’ve done nothing, but think they deserve to move up”.  Right? You say this stuff to don’t you!  Then I remember – I had the same freaking stupid goals – I wanted to be a VP by 35 or somehow I’d consider my life to be a failure (It didn’t happen until I was 38 – and by the time I got it – it no longer seemed important!).  Generations haven’t changed – young people have always want to move up faster than they should and believe they can handle it.

I envy people who have stayed in the same position for 20-30-40 years – COMPLETELY – envy.  To be satisfied with where you are at – not feel that need to push up or out – to chase something that in the end is meaningless – that is a feeling I don’t know – but would like to.   You know – HR Pros/Leaders contribute to this issue – we tell people they are on a career path, we feel the need to show them a career path – we make people feel like if they aren’t “chasing” their career path or climbing the ladder they are somehow less than others.  They aren’t.

 

Strategic Napping

Posted on by
5

You guys know I’m always on the outlook for things that will make my recruiters more productive – the constant beatings have proven only to be successful in the short-term!  So, when I read the NY Times article Rethinking Sleeping I was a bit, but hopeful, that maybe science has come up with something that won’t cost me more money.  I’ve always been envious of folks that only need 4-6 hours of sleep per night and seem fresh as a daisy – I’m also skeptical since I think most people lie about how much sleep they get and not on the high side.  Most people I run into wear their lack of sleep like a badge of honor – “I only sleep 4 hours per night!” – so you go to bed when? Midnight? And get up at 4am?  Really?!? Reeaallly!!!??? Come on – I’m calling bullshit.  It’s just like the people who tell you they work 80 hours per week – No you don’t – you can’t count your 1 hour each way commute time and checking email on your iPhone as you sit on the toilet before you go to bed – that doesn’t count!

I’m a 7 hour per night kind of sleeper – I go to bed at 11:30 pm – alarm goes off at 6:30am – I’m a no snooze alarm person, wants it goes off, I’m up.  Now on the weekends that changes up a bit – its usually anywhere from midnight to 2am watching movie in bed time until however long I can force myself to stay in bed in the morning which is usually 9am at the latest – again it’s probably a rough 7-9, maybe 9 hours on Saturday and Sunday.  Now, I could say I only sleep 4 hours – because let’s face it – I’m 40ish – around 2-4am I’m up, peeing – thank you old age.  My grandmother is a true 4 hour a sleep person – she is 83 and I think it pisses her off that she actually has to go to bed – I think she would prefer to just keep drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes at the kitchen table all night – but alas, she forces herself to go to bed.  I’m completely envious of her telling me stories of how she is up at 4am, and has to force herself to stay in bed that long!  I keep waiting for those genetics to kick in – can you imagine how much you could get done by only sleeping 4 hours!

‘They’ tell us we should get 8 hours of sleep a night.  We assume that means 8 hours in a row- but new research is showing us that maybe 8 hours in a row isn’t what is really needed to be most productive.  From the NY Times article:

This, despite the fact that a number of recent studies suggest that any deep sleep — whether in an eight-hour block or a 30-minute nap — primes our brains to function at a higher level, letting us come up with better ideas, find solutions to puzzles more quickly, identify patterns faster and recall information more accurately. In a NASA-financed study, for example, a team of researchers led by David F. Dinges, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, found that letting subjects nap for as little as 24 minutes improved their cognitive performance…

Gradual acceptance of the notion that sequential sleep hours are not essential for high-level job performance has led to increased workplace tolerance for napping and other alternate daily schedules.  Employees at Google, for instance, are offered the chance to nap at work because the company believes it may increase productivity.

Here is what I know – taking a nap at work in America, in 99% of our organizations, is going to be looked at as a sign something is wrong with you – unfortunately. We haven’t opened enough minds yet to make this acceptable behavior.  Do I think taking a strategic nap during the day has merit – I do – but would your employees be willing to take an extra hour nap and then work until 6pm?  Doubtful, right?  There in lies that balance issue – if you sleep during work hours, work hours get expanded – and you have to be willing to push your concept of family balance out to the extra time you’ll have not sleeping later at night or early in the morning – that is a big jump in perception for our society right now.