I’ll admit, I still watch professional wrestling mainly because I was a fan as a young kid and enjoy the athleticism and psychology of wrestling, plus the rocking entrance theme songs. As I learn in wrestling, there are to sides: a face or a heel. In the more recent years, the antihero has become very popular in wrestling because they’re not a conventional hero and that they do it their own way. In businesses, there are many antiheroes than you think.
An antihero does not have the same qualities as a conventional hero since they have flaws and tough surroundings, but they do it their way and stray from the conventional method. They have their own interpretation of their organization, which is a good thing. In their own way, they do what is best for the organization.
In the workplace, the conventional hero would wear a suit, say the keywords, and keeps a happy face making sure everything looks fine. The thing is the people prefer their companies to be transparent and human. The antihero shows the human element to the organization and can relate to the individual.
No one knows this but most of the people in your business are a bunch of antiheroes. They do the work, meet deadlines, and each one does it their own way. Although the antihero can be critical of their own organization, they never going to diss the company. The antihero does what’s right for them and the organization.
Since this is Halloweenweekend and people love to dress up who they want to be, just take a look of yourself in the mirror and ask yourself this: are you comfortable who you are working for and have you establish your voice? If yes on both accounts, then you’re the antihero.
On All Things Considered, they did a story on research that a group with different levels of intelligence and skill sets can be more effective than a group of individuals who have high intelligence. Although the sample of the study is small, it brings to attention that it’s not the top talent that makes a success, but the right talent.
One of my pet peeves in recruiting is recruiters promoting to applicants that their seeking “top talent.” My problem with that statement is 1) how do you define “top talent” within your organization and 2) how would you find it? Technically, every organization is looking for “top talent”, but it is your organization’s philosophy brings the right talent.
The right talent not only has the skills, expertise, and mindset of the organization; they know their role is in the organization. Organizations must have defined roles (and we’re not talking about job descriptions) for each employee to operate as one. Organizations must have everyone on the same page and organizations know how to place their talents. If it is executed well, the organization will more likely to have success, but that is up to your employees to make it a success or failure.
Does that mean if you all have “top talent”, does your business fail? In most cases, that would be the probable result, but it is possible you can succeed if your “top talent” can make sacrifices either by money, ego, stature, and others. For example, LeBron James and Chris Bosh (ignore the PR stunt, that’s a whole different topic) took less than the maximum to sign with the Miami Heat to win not one, but several NBA Championships and doing it with Dwayne Wade.
The main purpose of collaboration is to act as one. It is alright to have individuality within your group/business, but understand to be a a truly “top talent”, you must do it what is best for your group and embrace it as a whole. The right talent don’t think about themselves; they think about the big picture. Hope your business has everyone seeing the big picture.
It is sad that John Wooden passed away before hitting 100. The basketball and business world will miss him. I can talk about his contributions in basketball, including being the first to go to the Basketball Hall of Fame as a player and coach. However, his success was well beyond the basketball court.
On top of this post is John Wooden’s Pyramid of Success and the statement that defines the Pyramid of Success. It was a leadership tool of where you at within and the people you are surround either by family, friends, or co-workers. What I’m amazed with Wooden is not the result, but how he got the result.
In the sports and business world, organizations are worried about the bottom line. If you win, you stay, if you lose, your job is on the line. John Wooden never thought about the wins and losses. What Wooden wanted his players and coaches to focus on the process of getting better. Wooden’s philosophy is if you thinking about winning or losing, you’re never going to get better. Wooden wanted to start on the fundamentals first, then work your way up. When the fundamentals are set, then focus on the little things that can yield to the big picture. This is what we’re missing in business: people focusing too much on the result and not enough on the process.
Why do you think John Wooden was successful all throughout life? He wanted to teach and hope his players/employees execute and teach their people to be leaders. What John Wooden miss was not the fame, money, or the championships, but the practices to see if the players got better everyday. Too bad the business world is results-driven. If organizations enjoy the process of being a business, I do not know how many successful organizations we have in this world. This is why businesses can’t succeed because of raw talent, they need to learn the process of being an all-around business person. Skill is very important (as it is the heart of the pyramid), but, you must have the mental and physical abilities before heading up to the middle row.
When you head back to work on Monday, think about where you and your organization is heading. Do not think about the result, think about the process. If you’re at a dead-end, then find another route (basically another job or a different staff). If there’s light through a dark area, figure out what needs to be done. One bad thing should be view as an obstacle, not the nail in the coffin. There are many routes to choose from, but it’s ultimately you and your organization’s decision to choose what path you head.
What John Wooden wants us to think that the championships, accolades, and fortune are great, it’s the journey, the marathon, the contest, and the process that made him live and work for a long time. If you enjoy the journey, you will reap life/career’s rewards, however it is shaped.
If you’ve been reading this blog for a few years (probably two of you), you realize I have never discuss the main business buzzword: Return on Investment (ROI). I’ll be honest, I never fully captivate what ROI did for business. It’s simple math (in my opinion): if you hire the person, brings in revenue, and stays with the organization for 3-5+ years, the ROI is great. If the person stays for less than a year, then ROI takes a hit for your organization. It is a simple formula, yet very complex. I always thought ROI is an overrated statistic for business. After attending RecruitDC, I think ROI is useful, but I think business professionals (including recruiters) are looking at this backwards (and overusing the term to death).
I understand ROI is a statistic to tell businesses where they stand, but I feel people are using ROI like their life depends on it. If there is one thing ROI relies on, it’s the something that people never think to apply on business: the Return on Emotion (ROE).
ROE should start in the networking circuit when a recruiter (or hiring manager) meets a candidate for the first time and the representative and candidate are engaged with each other. If the representative of that organization has a job opening , the both will likely get a phone screen and/or interview and this is where you have to use your business emotion. While the interview is going on, the hiring manager must answer these questions internally:
Do I believe in his/her word?
Do I trust he/she will do it?
Is my business emotion to this candidate high, low, or in the middle?
What is my threshold dealing with candidate?
If the hiring manager’s emotion is positive in all of the questions, the ROE is very good and likely the candidate will get hired. If any question has a negative tone, don’t consider the candidate (but do help him/her on their job search since they are a connection). The point for ROE is for the hiring manager to be comfortable with the candidate from day one and continue into the workplace. ROE is about chemistry and expectations.
Business relationships carry most of your business. If your ROE is high, it is very likely the business ROI will be high as well. ROI tells businesses results, but at times, outside forces skew the results since ROI is measured at that moment. A high ROE would help organizations to handle what comes at them. However, if your business emotion is either high or low during troubled times, your ROE is skewered as well. This is why people always say in the business, “Keep your emotions in check.”
It’s a simple equation: ROE measures the quality of the business relationship in that department and gives you the outcome, while ROI measures the quantity of your department and backs it up with statistics. If you want an easy tip on how to measure ROE, look into your hiring manager’s eyes, body language, and tone. That’s your answer.
If you’ve been reading on your current events, you might have heard that napping is very good not only for your health, but boosting productivity at work. That is a good thing…and a bad thing.
The Good
Napping gives a second wind for employees to end on a good note for the day. Napping recalibrates our brains and organizes what needs to be done. Napping replenish our soul to do better things. This is why pre-school have nap times so they can play all day and ruin their parents lives (I kid). Napping proves the standard 9-5 schedule is non-existent anymore and people don’t have to worry about time, only results matter. It use to be napping was a deterrent to work. Now, it’s an added necessity for a better workplace.
The Bad
Napping is telling us we are living in a 24/7 workplace. I understand businesses need to be competitive to keep in touch with the masses, but does every second really have to count? Businesses are thinking themselves with people having short-attention spans getting shorter, they must plaster something every second to get people talking about before it expires. Just wait where businesses will call people at 3AM…constantly.
The point here is although napping has their benefits, businesses need to pick their spots on growing their customer base and their value. That takes time, not overkill and sadly, I think this is where most businesses are heading.
For full disclosure: everyone who reads my blog knows I’m a big Tony Kornheiser fan. I have posted a lot of material about Tony, hell my website url is in honor of Mr. Tony. Also I have to admit: Between 10 Am-Noon is my most unproductive (but gives me the best ideas of work) hours of the day because of the Tony Kornheiser Show.
To sum up: last Thursday, Tony made comments on his radio show on a couple fashion faux pas: one for Today‘s Hoda Kotb and her bare arms and Hannah Storm. Here was Tony’s comments on Hannah Storm that day:
“She’s got on her typically very, very tight shirt. She looks like she has sausage casing wrapping around her upper body … I know she’s very good, and I’m not supposed to be critical of ESPN people, so I won’t … but Hannah Storm … come on now! Stop! What are you doing? She’s what I would call a Holden Caulfield fantasy at this point.”
As a fan, that statement was funny, especially his reference to Catcher in the Rye with the “Holden Caulfield Fantasy” line. As a HR person (which Tony has said are along the same line as terrorists), this looks bad. I don’t care how accurate it is, you never…EVER diss a co-worker in public. Tony knew that from the statement above, but said it anyway. Also, the sausage line gives me pause as well since it could be interpret as a euphemism. A few blogs mention
Tony’s comments on Hannah’s wardrobe and someone told Tony to diffuse the situation.
The next day, Tony went on-air to his audience and called Hannah personally to apologize for his comments. That should be it, end of story, let’s move on. However, ESPN has a different take.
Initially, Tony’s suspension was for three days. If I were in HR at ESPN, I would have reduce it to a one-day suspension, but that can be debated. However, ESPN change their mind and suspended Kornheiser for two weeks for “inappropriate, hurtful, and personal comments” towards Hannah Storm. Wait, Kornheiser did an on-air and personal apology and Hannah did not ask for suspension, so what gives?
Deadspin gives the real reason why Tony was suspended: he use Chris Berman’s name in vain. Apparently, Tony broke ESPN’s Ten Commandments that he use Berman (implied is a better term) as an example, hence the longer suspension. ESPN was fine about Hannah Storm, but not Chris Berman? This leads to the bigger issue: ESPN itself.
Tony and Hannah did the right thing and diffuse the problems themselves to limit its exposure and that should be the end of it. ESPN then came right out saying Tony was suspended for two weeks and there was a media frenzy around the suspension, even some of the press incorrectly call the incident, “a sexual harassment case.” In addition, people knew ESPN’s workplace culture from several public sexual harassment cases that shed light to their situation, plus the highlighted departures of Matt Winer and Peter Gammons and could potentially lose Erin Andrews, Bill Simmons, and Chris Berman before the end of the year.
Another thing to ponder: ESPN hired Tony Kornheiser back in the mid 90s to be an asshole. He was frequently on The Sports Reporters to be an asshole. He was selected to be a co-host of PTI because he’s an asshole. He was one of the Dream Job judges because he loves Simon Cowell, who is an asshole. You hire him for Monday Night Football to be an asshole, yet he got suspended twice from ESPN of being asshole? Which Tony does ESPN want?
You have to ask ESPN this: what did ESPN do when Mike Golic bashed Tony when it was announced he was an analyst for MNF? What about when Mike Greenberg said a derogatory word on air on Martin Luther King Day? What about Bill Simmons occasional bashing of ESPN, the company he is currently working for? The answer to all of these questions: nothing.
Basically, ESPN turned into the International Luge Federation and made the situation worse by putting the onus on Kornheiser-Storm and not the real reason for this fiasco: Chris Berman. This speaks of ESPN acting as if Kornheiser was the antagonist of the event since he attack someone from a “protected class.” If you want to justify the suspension, mention that he said bad things publicly about Chris Berman and you will get fewer people upset about it.
The moral of this ESPN story for HR is know who you hire and try your best of not to be surprise as a result. Also in some cases, employees know how to deal with the situation on their own and saving HR’s time. In addition, be transparent of what and why you do it because anyone can blow the door wide open if it is kept hidden. Finally, understand the culture you’re working at because some do get special treatment that is unfair to others.
It is alright to have conflicts and disagreements in-house, like Tony bashing Digger Phelps and his “tie-lighter” or his numerous fights against Paul Farhi when he was with the Washington Post at the time. ESPN knew the risks and rewards of hiring Tony Kornheiser and they realize they control the sports empire in part because of PTI and him. However, they should also know everyone is gunning for them and be prepared to take hits, including their perennial superstars like Berman, Stuart Scott, and Bill Simmons. In this case, ESPN opened their own Pandora’s Box by shifting blame to who they think are expendable.
For that, it’s a shame ESPN took that route.
By the way, if you really want to work for Chris Berman, you have to deal with this:
If you’re reading this, I apparently snuck in and out of SHRM Headquarters and no one caught me. That is why people call me the Jackal.
Anyway, I attended the 1st Wine, Cheese, and HR YP Networking Event, provided by SHRM. The event was in short notice as it started advertising for the event two weeks ago. SHRM said around 90 RSVP for the event…around 30-40 actually came. This is no knock on SHRM since they had a short time organizing the event, plus their were other events that was ahead of time: weather, holiday parties, local SHRM Chapter meetings, Caps game. For that, SHRM did a marvelous job.
It was a formal networking event, like any typical networking event with food, bar, a few minutes of the sponsor, music (minus the loudness, which is a plus), and…networking. A few observations I want to make:
Almost everyone I asked heard about the event through email. How did I know about the event? Not by seeing an email or through social media. I learn the event from crashing the SHRM Leadership Conference a few weeks ago and saw China Gorman, who mention the event to me there. Social media is great and I am a big advocate of using social media in any aspect, but this still proves you need to attract people on a personal level first and email still works best. Then again, it was on short notice.
SHRM employees have read my blog. This is the second organization that is watching my move (the first is NPR for reasons I can’t discuss on this blog).
SHRM unveiled their 2010 video. This was the second time I saw the video and I’m starting to like it more and more. “Next” will be a big word for next year for many organizations since we’re starting a new decade (new decade actually starts on 2011, but who’s counting?), but SHRM really define next. I won’t go into details, but this was an effective ad that answers my question: “What is HR.”
The event brought to attention that HR has come a long way from just being an administrative function. HR is still evolving, but that will depend on how executives uses HR and what each HR professional feels comfortable doing. Bill Maroni, Chief External Affairs Officer at SHRM, made the an excellent point that 20 years ago, HR was an administrative function, but HR has been changing definitions each year and 10 years from now, the definition of HR will be different from today.
This is where structure and philosophy has become an important role to HR because it has an open definition. Employees knows what finance, communications, and business development because they are defined and people know what to expect. HR can play many roles and thus causing a wide variety of emotions to employees either like or dislike HR (re: Tony Kornheiser, Dan Froomkin, and the Washington Post) .
What employees outside of HR need to know is HR is the vision of the executive(s). If they want a stiff workplace, HR will find stiff people. If they want a creative staff, HR will find creative people. If they want chaos, HR will create chaos, and so forth. However, HR can question or alter the executive’s vision for the betterment of the organization, but it is up to the executive if they are open to change. Collaboration between HR and executives is the key to establish the organization’s workplace culture.
As for the networking event, I do see a lot of promise for the SHRM YP group and it should start at the Annual SHRM Conference or the weekend of the HRGames (I missed those days) to expand the YP group since college students and graduates have their sessions Saturday, the day before the actual conference. I also hope there’s a two-day summit or unconference on the state of HR YPs so people can discuss HR issues and bounce off ideas and how YPs can improve HR.
Overall, SHRM did a great job of running this event on short notice. If they had more time, I would expect more people to attend these events and from the looks of it, SHRM is serious of being forward-thinking to the workplace for the next decade. Looks like 2010 could be a start of big things to come.
I attended my alma mater’s alumni weekend festivities and attended a session where Jim Larranaga was talking about George Mason basketball. In the session, he mention how Dr. Alan Merten, the President of George Mason University, persuaded him to be the head coach of George Mason in 1997. Larranaga told another story of how Merten persuaded Vernon Smith, an economics professor at the University of Arizona at the time, and staff to go to Mason. As a result of those moves, Smith won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 and Larranaga lead George Mason to a Final Four run in 2006.
To paraphrase what Larranaga said about his boss, “When Merten became President, he had a vision of what George Mason should be and use his networking skills to get what he wanted to achieve that vision.” This should be what other executives mindset if they can get superstar talent.
(To get this out of they way, if your organization has numerous problems, don’t read the rest. Your organization likely has internal problems and there are too many problems to fill. Now, if your organization has a few problems, read the rest).
In your organization, if there is one piece of the puzzle that is missing and there is someone out there that the organizations wants, bring the kitchen sink. If there is one (or two) piece(s) missing, the employees and executives feel they are getting close and optimism arises within the organization, but it must start with a vision in place so you can tell your organization’s current situation and tell the person why they are important. Then, the organization tells what they’re doing great and what weaknesses they have and explain to the person why is he/she an important piece of their organization.
The best case scenario is if the superstar accepts the decision, jubilation ensues throughout the organization and anticipation comes and after a few months, the superstar meets expectations. The worst case scenario is with all the hoopla within the organization, the superstar fails to meet expectations and demoralize the organization.
Simply put, it is alright to take a chance at something that your organization needs. It will give a temporary boost within the organization. It the organization takes a chance and fails, that happens and you move on, but if you’re not taking risks, how can your organization improve long-term? All you need is a vision, specific goals, a great workplace culture, networking depth, and timing to force the issue. In Alan Merten’s case, the stars were aligning in his favor because he forced George Mason to be great.
We’re in the middle of Fall and when I think of Fall, I think of leaves falling, football (and hockey season), the fiscal year, and the new TV season. This leads to the sixth recipient of the award. Most will not remember his name, but you will…
If you have not watch NewsRadio (which is likely almost everyone who reads this), it is a “behind the scenes” look of how a radio station runs. The main character is Dave Nelson, who came from Wisconsin and travel to New York to save WNYX, New York’s news station. Dave came into the station as the “savior” and he did not use force or volatility for his position. Dave uses rational, pragmatic, and patience (does it remind you of someone?) in his approach to the workplace. Dave also knows how to motivate his employees, especially Matthew Brock, to do their best and keep it simple.
Of course, any boss will have flaws and Dave has a number of flaws. He is dating in the workplace with Lisa, making some employees squirm. Dave also lied that he is a Canadian citizen and came to the U.S. and worried that if Americans discover he’s Canadian, they would assume he’s a spy and call the CIA for his capture.
Even with all those flaws, Dave turns that into a strength and use that as a learning lesson. He was once demoted from his Station Manager chair, and then regain it back. Although all the personalities surround him are unique, his even-keel manner helps make WNYX stay afloat for five seasons.
So to Dave Nelson, hiding somewhere in the States to be avoided as a Canadian Spy, congratulations on being the sixth recipient of the Pop Culture HR Award.
In my previous HR post, I mention organizations and companies need to have a divide and conquer strategy to maximize their revenue. That is the employers biggest adjustment to today’s market. For current and potential employees: expanding their skill set.
Up and coming workers (interns and entry-level employees) come in to learn more about the industry and decide if they want to stick with their career path. There will be some who already know what they want to do, but most prefer working for a company because of their history and work culture and have no clue what they want to do. It brought to my attention what companies need to do: just have interns and office coordinators and don’t put labels on them early.
The young workers are different in this generation because Gen Y are naive but energetic and they can handle multiple areas (i.e. business development and literature, media and accounting, etc.). The person has a lot of stuff to carry on their minds and they might burnout if not done properly. What should employers do with all this potential? Have them do it all.
No, the person should not do all the jobs simultaneously, but the person should have one week to explore the different departments and decide where they want to go. Employers must be like parents and see what the person does best and the person tells their employer what job makes them comfortable. Employers must be open minded and give the up and coming workers options so they don’t get stuck in a box.
The only problem is what if there are many people who want to go to one department? That is why labels are thrown out so everyone would try each department. The up and coming employees are there to learn about how the company functions and be understudies. It is also a great learning experience for up and coming workers on how each department functions because one way or another, you have to face each department in your career.
After it’s all said and done, if the person wants to stay but does not know about their role, put them in a office coordinator/manager role. The office coordinator/manager is an equivalent to a utility player in baseball or an all-purpose player in football. The person has all the talent but it will take a an x amount of time to see where exactly they want to head at.
This is an all-win, no lose situation for both the employer and employee. For the employer, they mold an up and comer and can promote their workplace culture through references and word of mouth. For the employee, they get their feet wet and have vast knowledge of how each division works, which will be valuable down the line in their careers.
There will be superstars, there will be role players, and there will be your headcases in your organization. However, it all starts at the bottom with your up and coming workers and how will employers build them up to be future superstars and special role players. It’s alright to be good at one thing, but it’s better to know what everything is going on.
