By now most of you probably have had the chance to read the Telsla article where they terminated 400 employees directly after their annual review process. If not, check out the link. Also, my buddy Kris Dunn did a great write up on Tesla’s ‘unique’ culture as well over at the HR Capitalist.(Go Check it Out!)
Category Archives: SHRM
HR Technology is Outpacing Leadership Skill #HRTechConf
It’s the big HR Technology takeaways 2017!
So, as you’re reading this I’m flying back home from ‘the’ HR Technology Conference. Another great show put on by Steve Boese and the LRP team!
There are so many things I take away from this year’s show and I wanted to share some of the bigger ones:
– HR and TA Technology sophistication are surpassing leadership ability in those functions. That’s a broad statement. There are many great HR and TA leaders out there that understand this tech at a very deep level, and they’re doing amazing things at their organizations. 90% don’t. This is a competency we have to increase!
– Artificial Intelligence will take your job. The A.I. company’s marketing will never tell you this, but you’re an idiot if you don’t understand how this works. A.I. will take away more and more task-level work. If you’re a practitioner that spends most of their day doing task-level work, you’re no longer needed, or not as many of you are needed. The ROI for A.I. is not more profit, it’s expense reduction.
– Technology doesn’t stop to let you breathe and catch up. I’ve been coming to HR Tech for years and the one thing is very consistent, every year the technology advances at an increasing rate. You have to work really hard to try and stay up with it.
– HR and TA Technology salespeople continue to struggle to connect the dots. And I think it’s getting worse! I think the biggest issue is trying to sound too sophisticated, and using too much ‘marketing’ speak to explain how your product can help. For the most part, we (HR and TA) are pretty unsophisticated. Just tell us like it is, show us how it works, and what impact it will make. 90% of us will never want to know how the sausage is made, or even care that you know. We get it. You’re smart. Now help us actually solve a real problem.
– This stuff is really cool! I wish we could break everything down easier so everyone felt more comfortable digging into their HR and TA tech stacks and want to get more involved because it’s pretty awesome to see how this industry is evolving our profession!
– There are good guys and gals selling great solutions who truly care about helping you make your company better. And there are assholes who want to make money and could care less about your success. Search out the good guys. Much of the tech we use is not that awfully different from one competitor to the next, but how much they truly care about the success of your organization can vary widely!
The future of HR and TA Technology is very bright. There are really smart people working on stuff that you can’t even imagine. Our industry will look very different in five years, and most of the direction will be coming from successes in other functions like marketing, sales, operations, supply chain, etc.
Keep demoing. Keep advancing your stack where and when you can. Don’t allow IT to pick what you use. Fight for better technology for your teams and your employees.
Turns Out, Employees Don’t Actually Leave Managers!
For decades we’ve been telling leaders this one thing about employees and retention. We’ve said it so much, it’s actually become ‘common’ knowledge we take for granted. It’s this one phrase:
Employees don’t leave companies, they leave managers.
Have you used this phrase? Of course, you have! Everyone in HR has used this!
New research has come out from IBM’s Smarter Workforce Institute, “Should I Stay, or Should I Go?” that has actually proven our ‘common’ knowledge is wrong:
“Managers are not the reason most people leave –
• Contrary to many media reports, only 14 percent of people left their last job because they were unhappy with their managers.
• The biggest work-related reason (cited by 40 percent of respondents) for leaving is because employees are not happy with their jobs.
• Almost as many people (39 percent) left their last job for personal reasons such as spouse relocation, child care or health issues.
• One in five (20 percent) workers left because they were not happy with their organization.
• Eighteen percent left due to organizational changes which had caused a great deal of uncertainty.”
This isn’t some small study of a hundred employees. IBM looked at data from 22,000 employees!
So, why has this concept of employees leaving managers become so wildly accepted and popular amongst HR leaders and pros?
You won’t like this answer, but we liked using this reason for employees leaving because it meant it wasn’t our problem. I mean it was our problem to help fix, but it wasn’t our fault. It was those stupid managers!
So, we’ll coach them up. Give them soft skills training. Talk down to them like their children, and help them become ‘leaders’. IBM didn’t actually say this was the reason, this is my own reasoning. It’s just super comfortable to give this explanation to why we have high turnover.
The reality is if employees leave there are likely numerous reasons all of which are probably centered on a bad employee experience. They were unhappy because of something. It might have been because they were working for a crappy manager, but it also might be they just made a bad fit decision in the job they choose to accept, or culturally the fit wasn’t good with your organization and the employee.
One thing is certain. Employees, the majority, don’t leave managers. They leave your freaking company. That’s not our manager’s issue, it’s all of our issues. Today’s challenge? Stop using this phrase and start taking ownership of your employee turnover!
#DisruptHR Detroit was a Yuuggee Success!
Hey, gang! It’s Friday and I’m buried from a busy week. Do you feel me!?!?
We held the first DirsuptHR Detroit event this week in midtown Detroit at the Graden Theater. We sold 330 tickets for a space that held 300, we had 50 people on a waiting list. The space was awesome. The speakers were awesome. The food and drink were awesome. The crowd was awesome.
I have to give up to the DisruptHR Detroit Team – Kristen Cifolelli, Patrice Matejka, Ursulla McWhorter, Colleen Schmerheim, Bridgette Morehouse, Christie Hecht, and Christie Reeves. It takes a village and this team was awesome!
Also, I have to thank all the sponsors who made this wonderful event possible: American Society of Employers, Marsh & McClennan Agency, Ultimate Software, Grace & Porta Benefits, Cambridge Consulting Group, QuadWest Assc., Walsh College, Sift, HRU, and Qualigence. Plus, a special shoutout to SkillScout who did all of our videos for the speakers!
So, it was a great night, that was until one nice young lady decided that somehow I reminded her of Donald Trump! WTF!?!?! You can see the picture above I had on a Tiger’s cap (yes, very disruptive at an HR event!), so I’m still perplexed on how I reminded of her Trump because I was super careful not to say anything racist while on stage!
We can’t wait for the next event! More details on that coming soon. In the mean time, if you want to speak at the next DisruptHR Detroit – send me a message and I’ll make sure to invite you when we open up speaking submissions!
What if you and your competitors recruited talent together?
Think about most U.S. cities. What do they have in common? I travel all over the U.S. and to be honest, it’s all starting to look a lot alike!
Every city has a mall or three. At these malls, you’ll find the same restaurants. Chilis, Olive Garden, Applebee’s, Bravo, steak places, some random Japanese hibachi place, etc. Usually, down from the mal, you’ll find a Home Depot. Across the street from Home Depot, you’ll find a Lowes. Down from those are the car dealerships.
Sound like your city!?
Our cities are set up like this because it works. Putting all of these competitive places close together works for the consumer. They like all the choices close together.
Talent really isn’t much different.
If I’m a nurse, I want to be close hospitals. The more hospitals the better. That way if my job at one hospital isn’t working out, I don’t have to commute all the way across town to another hospital. If I’m in IT having a bunch of tech companies in the same area is desirable for the same reason.
What we don’t find, normally, are employers working together to solve their talent issues. A cook at one restaurant might be begging for more hours, but we never think about sharing that cook with the restaurant next door. We force the talent to go figure this out on their own.
Traditionally, I think career fairs thought they were doing this. Bring all the employers to one location and then all the talent can come and pick who they want to work with. It’s a start, but this isn’t really organizations working together to bring in more and better talent.
A modern-day equivalent to the traditional career fair might be cities working to ‘attract’ talent to their cities from places like Silicone Valley. In recent years, Minneapolis has been working to position themselves as a Midwest IT hub, so local and state government dollars have been working to get workers from other cities to come to Minneapolis.
What I’m talking about is what if two companies came together to share their talent databases for the benefit of both? Could it work? What would get in the way?
I think it could work. I think the organizations involved would be some forward-thinking leadership, some tight rules of engagement, and a very new way of thinking about collaboration.
So often we make a hire of someone we know if talented, but it doesn’t work out for a number of reasons, many times those reasons are self-inflicted by the organization. What if you could ‘move’ that talent to your ‘talent partner’ organization for a fresh start, and vice versa?
I love times when talent is tight because it forces us to start thinking about different solutions and ways of doing things. We all have talent in our databases that we aren’t using and might never use, but someone else might have exactly what we need in their database.
Instead, we sit on our unused, expensive inventory of candidates and do nothing. That doesn’t seem like a smart business practice…
Do you pay your employees more for referring Diverse candidates?
I know a ton of HR Pros right now who have been charged by their organizations to go out and “Diversify” their workforce. By “Diversify”, I’m not talking about diversity of thought, but to recruit a more diverse workforce in terms of ethnic, gender and racial diversity.
Clearly, by bringing in more individuals from underrepresented groups in your workforce, you’ll expand the “thought diversification”, but for those HR Pros in the trenches and sitting in conference rooms with executives behind closed doors, diversification of thought isn’t the issue being discussed.
So, I have some assumptions I want to lay out before I go any further:
1. Referred employees make the best hires. (Workforce studies frequently list employee referrals as the highest quality hires across all industries and positions)
2. ERPs (Employee Referral Programs) are the major tool used to get employee referrals by HR Pros.
3. A diverse workforce will perform better in most circumstances, then I homogeneous workforce will.
4. Diversity departments, if you’re lucky enough, or big enough, to have one in your organization, traditionally tend to do a weak job at “recruiting” diversity candidates (there more concerned about getting the Cinco De Mayo Taco Bar scheduled, etc.)
Now, keeping in mind the above assumptions, what do you think is the best way to recruit diversity candidates to your organization?
I’ve yet to find a company willing to go as far as to “Pay More” for a black engineer referral vs. a white engineer referral. Can you imagine how that would play out in your organization!? But behind the scenes in HR Department across the world, this exact thing is happening in a number of ways.
First, what is your cost of hire for diverse candidates versus non-diverse candidates? Do you even measure that? Why not? I’ll tell you why, is very hard to justify why you are paying two, three and even four times more for a diversity candidate, with the same skill sets, versus a non-diverse candidate in most technical and medical recruiting environments. Second, how many diversity recruitment events do you go to versus non-specific diversity recruitment events? In organizations who are really pushing diversification of workforce, I find that this figure is usually 2 to 1.
So, you will easily spend more resources of your organization to become more diversified, but you won’t reward your employees for helping you to reach your goals? I find this somewhat ironic. You will pay Joe, one of your best engineers, $2000 for any referral, but you are unwilling to pay him $4000 for referring his black engineer friends from his former company.
Yet, you’ll go out and spend $50,000 attending diversity recruiting job fairs and events all over the country trying to get the same person. When you know the best investment of your resources would be to put up a poster in your hallways saying “Wanted Black Engineers $4000 Reward!”.
Here’s why you don’t do this.
Most organizations do a terrible job at communicating the importance of having a diverse workforce, and that to get to an ideal state, sometimes it means the organization might have to hire a female, or an Asian, or an African American, or a Hispanic, over a similarly qualified white male to ensure the organization is reaching their highest potential.
Workgroup performance by diversity is easily measured and reported to employees, to demonstrate diversity successes, but we rarely do it, to help us explain why we do what we are doing in talent selection. What do we need to do? Stop treating our employees like they won’t get it, start educating them beyond the politically correct version of Diversity and start educating them on the performance increases we get with diversity. Then it might not seem so unheard of to pay more to an employee for referring a diverse candidate!
So, you take pride in your diversity hiring efforts, but you’re just unwilling to properly reward for it…
Being a Fair Leader Won’t Get You Promoted!
Look out HR Leaders this one is going to sting a little – from The Harvard Business Review:
“In management, fairness is a virtue. Numerous academic studies have shown that the most effective leaders are generally those who give employees a voice, treat them with dignity and consistency, and base decisions on accurate and complete information.
But there’s a hidden cost to this behavior. We’ve found that although fair managers earn respect, they’re seen as less powerful than other managers—less in control of resources, less able to reward and punish—and that may hurt their odds of attaining certain key, contentious leadership roles.”
Wow, that really flies in the face of all that we’ve been taught by our HR Heroes, doesn’t it! Well, not exactly, just because treating employees fairly and with respect might not get you promoted, it doesn’t make it the wrong thing to do. That’s a hard pill to swallow though, right?
How many times in your career have you looked at someone who was promoted and said to yourself “how the hell did they get promoted!?” It’s usually the leader who is pushing people around, and no one likes, and the CEO taps them on the shoulder for the next VP role. Some more from the HBR article:
“We’ve long wondered why managers don’t always behave fairly because doing so would clearly benefit their organizations: Studies show that the success of change initiatives depends largely on fair implementation. Our research suggests an answer. Managers see respect and power as two mutually exclusive avenues to influence, and many choose the latter. Although this appears to be the more rational choice, it’s not always the correct one—and it poses big risks for organizations.”
Do you know why managers choose “Power” over “Respect” as a leadership style? It’s easier! I mean way EASIER! Positional power makes your job so much easier to move things through organizations and get things done, but you burn a lot of bridges and relationships on that path.
Getting things accomplished through mutual respect and influence can take time, but ultimately is more rewarding. Time tends to be the big factor with this, though. In today’s organizations we frequently feel pushed by time to get things done – Now – and that “now” tends not to work well with “respect”. More from HBR:
“Companies can benefit from placing more value on fairness when assessing managerial performance. Our early follow-up research suggests that managers whose style is based on respect can gain power. Their path upward may be difficult, but it’s one worth taking, for their company’s sake as well as their own.”
Thus, this is the key! Want to build Great leaders in your organization? Give them this time to get things done through leading with a style based in respect. Want to get something done tomorrow, and not care about how your employees are getting treated? Let positional power rule the day, and be comfortable with your leaders throwing their weight around the office to get things done.
Let’s face it, this isn’t an all or nothing exclusive thing. We need our leaders to do both – treat employees with respect, and get results quickly. That’s why we have HR! That is a tough thing to accomplish, but HR Pros can help leaders accomplish this task.
Everyone has their own rules. These are mine. The Sackett Rules!
I’m heading back from South Africa today, so I’m re-posting a blog post I wrote six years ago. The day I wrote it I was at SHRM with Matt Stollak and Matt Charney, who gave me the motivation for this! It’s fun looking back on some old posts and reminding myself of some of these.
I think we all have rules, our own set of rules, but rarely do we let others know, which is why it’s so hard dealing with people. If we just knew everyone’s rules, we would probably all get along just fine!
Here are my rules:
The Sackett Rules
1. Don’t call in sick on Mondays or Fridays – no one believes you. (My staff knows this one well)
2. Everyone has a price, it’s a recruiters job to figure that out. Never take “I’m not interested” as a reason. You just haven’t found out the price where they would be interested. (I don’t want to shovel cow manure, but if you pay me enough, well, heck, where’s the shovel?)
3. It only costs a little more to go, first class. (My Grandpa use to say this, then my Mom, now me. It’s about doing things right.)
4. People won’t remember what you said, but they’ll remember how you made them feel. (That’s why I bring great snacks to meetings, and try and have a funny story!)
5. Always be nice to Moms with young kids. (Their day is always much harder than mine.)
6. There’s always a reason to kick an old man down the steps, just don’t do it. (via Chris Rock – this just makes me laugh)
7. Don’t cross the streams. (from Ghostbusters: I use this one with my youngest son, it makes him laugh, and he’s never seen the original movie)
8. No touching of the hair or face. (Ron Burgundy in Anchorman: my wife will laugh at this. I don’t like people touching my almost gone hair and I had Lasik surgery years ago and don’t like anyone touching my face, and I don’t like bees!)
9. Don’t be a victim. (Yeah, you pretty much control what happens to you, I have very little patience for people who play the victim.)
10. If you are scrubbing the kitchen floor in your boxer shorts, don’t do it with the shades to the sliding glass door open, while your neighbors behind you are having your other neighbors over for drinks on the back deck. (enough said I believe)
What are your rules, that you wish everyone would know? Hit me in the comments!
Is Talent Acquisition Wasting Your Hiring Manager’s Time?
I had a conversation the other day with a corporate HR Director and we were talking recruiters, corporate recruiters. My friend had a dilemma, a classic corporate recruiting scenario. The problem is she has recruiters who are doing a decent job, but they won’t get out from behind their desk and get out into the organization and get face-to-face feedback from the hiring managers. But, here is the real reason: the recruiters feel like they are “wasting” the hiring manager’s time.
“So,” she asked, “How do I get them out to build these relationships?”
Great question, but she asked the wrong question (was partially my answer). Her problem isn’t that her recruiters aren’t building the relationships face-to-face with managers. The problem is they feel they are “wasting” someone’s time.
They don’t value or understand the value they are providing to the hiring manager. If they did, it sounds like they wouldn’t have a problem with visiting with the hiring managers. It’s a classic leadership fail, solving a symptom instead of solving the actual problem.
I don’t think that this is rare, recruiters feeling like they are wasting hiring managers time. It happens constantly at the corporate level. Once you train your recruiters (and hiring managers) on the value the recruiters are providing, you see much less resistance of the recruiters feeling comfortable getting in front of hiring managers to get feedback on candidates, and actually making a decision. This moves your process along much quicker.
What value do recruiters provide? Well, that seems like a really stupid question, but there aren’t stupid questions (just stupid people who ask questions). Here are few that will help your corporate recruiters understand their real value to hiring managers:
- Corporate recruiters are the talent pipeline for a hiring manager. (or should be!)
- Corporate recruiters can be the conduit for hiring managers to increase or better the talent within their department.
- Corporate recruiters are a partner to the hiring managers in assessing talent.
- Corporate recruiters are a strategist for the hiring managers group succession planning
- Corporate recruiters are your hiring managers first line of performance management (setting expectations before someone even comes in the door)
- Corporate recruiters are tacticians of organizational culture.
So, the next time you hear a recruiter tell you “I don’t want to waste their time.” Don’t go off on them and tell them to “just go out there and build the relationship”. Educate them on why they aren’t wasting their time. Then do an assessment for yourself to determine are they adding value or are they just wasting time. All recruiters are not created equal and some waste time, and it’s your job as a leader to find ones add value.
A critical component to all of this is building an expectation of your hiring managers of what they should expect from your recruiters. They should expect value. They should expect a recruiter who is a pro, and who is going to help them maneuver the organizational landscape and politics of hiring. They should expect a recruiter is going to deliver to them better talent than they already have. They should expect a partner, someone who is looking out for the best interest of the hiring managers department.
Ultimately, what they should expect is someone who won’t waste their time!
The 5 Hiring Managers You Never Want to Work With
I tend to read a lot about the type of manager you want to work for and with. It got me thinking, what about the 5 Hiring Managers You Don’t Want!? Not only for performance reviews but for interviews, development planning, discipline, etc. In HR we are constantly dealing with every type of hiring manager you can imagine but I came up with the top 5 I hate dealing with:
1. The Up-And-Out: You know this person, usually happens in larger organizations, at some point they were given a manager/director/VP title because they were the last one standing. As the talent took off in the organization to better positions with your competition, they kept moving up based mostly on the fact they had been around longer. But in the end, they lack talent, lack motivation, aren’t respected, and usually way over their head. They’ve been promoted past their ability and are now just waiting to be fired or retire.
2. The Nana-Nana-Boo-Boo I’m Better Than You: This the person who became a manager because they were probably the best at what ever function they were in, but lack leadership skills, so their leadership philosophy is to continue to show their staff that they are still better than their team by showing them up constantly and publicly. A huge piece of this stems from lack of self confidence and they feel they have to continue to show their bosses why they put them in charge, to begin with because they “get” this stuff and no one else does.
3. The Classic Politician: This is Captain Ass-Kisser (which was my first title for this hiring manager but I didn’t want to offend anyone) and Captain Fence Sitter. This is the hiring manager that will never take a stand, never be controversial and never put themselves in a position where they will protect their team. Basically, these are 85% of hiring managers at the Fortune 500 (hey don’t get mad at me I didn’t come up with the stat! Okay, I did but it seems about right, right?).
4. The Super Model: Have you ever noticed that most leaders are “pretty” people? Not only that, but they’re Tall. Abnormally tall and pretty on average, like there’s some conspiracy against short, ugly people. Look around at your leadership team and you’ll see 3 things: the average heigth is above the national average, they don’t have adult acne, and they have good hair. There actually have been academic studies done on this concept. People want their leaders like they want their celebrities, good looking and tall. Now this doesn’t make them less qualified, but it doesn’t make them more qualified either. And yes, I’m short with red hair and only my youngest son thinks I’m good looking and that’s only because he still fears I’ll shut off his iPhone.
5. The Tony Robbins-Stephen Covey-Wayne Dyer-Dr. Seuss: This one drives me completely insane! It’s the manager who reads leadership books constantly and only speaks in leadership-quotes-I’ve-read-in-books speak. You know, it’s gotta be a win-win, sharpen your saw, focus on our hedgehog, get that fly wheel going kinda day! These are the people that don’t have an original thought in their head but think their mashup of all the latest leadership crap somehow is an original master piece of their own.
So, hit me in the comments, which leader persona do you hate!?