Culture Blog

Unwrap This Present from i4cp Early

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:34:00 GMT

E-learning thought leader Dr. Nick van Dam recently provided the i4cp community with four chapters from his latest book Next Learning, Unwrapped!. These documents, available for free exclusively to i4cp members, are insightful samples illustrating how cutting-edge companies are using technology-based learning platforms to help shape their workforces. Each one examines a different aspect of the e-learning business case, addressing challenges and focusing on the resources needed to make an effective and strategic e-learning initiative.

Gain valuable insights from these i4cp member-exclusive preview samples.

Case Study - Microsoft on Standardizing Technology-based Learning: Microsoft uses a technology-based learning platform to support globally dispersed field employees, to provide up-to-date product and service information and to keep field employees on top of the latest innovations.

Case Study - Deloitte on Developing an Internal Social Networking Platform: In 2006, the company began its internal social networking initiative - dubbed D Street - to help appeal to Millennial recruits that prefer technology-based platforms for networking and learning.

Case Study - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan on Transforming Culture Through e-Learning: Non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM), in an effort to better compete against their for-profit health insurance company competition, embraced technology-based learning as a conduit for their Performance Transformation initiatives.

Case Study - SAP on Continuous e-Learning: In the fast-paced world of business software, SAP recognizes the need to move beyond learning for simple informational awareness into the realm of on-demand, purposeful, high-impact learning delivered when needed to meet business demands.

See also Dr. van Dam's 2011 i4cp webinar on Next Learning, Unwrapped to learn more about the innovative, technology-based learning solutions that leading organizations are using now to help achieve their business goals.

Leadership Competencies for the Coming Zombie Apocalypse

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:47:19 GMT

(‘cause, let's face it, we all know it's coming)

Even though we know a zombie apocalypse is imminent - judging by the current glut of zombie-themed movies, TV shows and video games - don't think that the world being overrun by shuffling flesh-eaters will mean there will be no work for a resilient HR professional with a good head still attached to his or her shoulders. In fact, as humans become more and more of a scarce resource, human resource management should only grow in importance. So, you know … job security.

Subsequently, for this first installment of the HR's Role in the Zombie Apocalypse™ blog, I thought it would be a good time to talk about leadership competencies.

i4cp has recently released a new report on leadership competencies, Developing High-Performing Leaders: Emphasizing the Competencies That Pay Off, and seeing as how we are one superflu or nuclear accident away from disaster, I figure a good way to supplement it is to add some info that will be critical to more than your organization's survival. While this particular study shows us that the competencies that are popular aren't necessarily the ones that correlate with market performance, I intend to share the competencies that correlate to not being eaten alive by rotting mutant freaks.

We'll see which list comes in handy first.

Leadership Selection After Z-Day

Once there's a critical mass of survivors collected together in whatever shopping mall you happen to be trapped in (or underground bunker, Bed, Bath and Beyond, pub/tavern, Big Brother house etc.), there will inevitably come a time to select a leader. If you have a supernaturally empowered "chosen one" in your group it should be an easy process. Just check references and signs such as a jutting jaw, six-pack abs and flaring nostrils (the same is true if a supermodel in skin-tight leather rides in, double-guns blazing John Woo style while airborne on a Harley).

But absent those scenarios, selection needs to be tied to those traits that will make your group a strategically aligned, engaged and productive band of zombie stompers. While the leadership competencies of high-performing companies - strategy development, a global mindset, decision-making sciences, organizational development, and strategy execution - might be helpful in your new, gore-splattered reality, they don't agree with what street-level research (my movie-engrossed half-life) has shown me will be needed for battling a shambling horde of stinky, bile-filled malevolence.

Leadership traits correlated with success in this more than likely future will be:

A brooding persona - most likely from the loss of loved ones, and the pervasive stink of rotting human flesh - but still a resilient optimist.
An individual who's not easily startled, freaked-out or pushed to the edge of sanity.
A willingness to delegate authority (e.g. "How about you go check out that noise …").
A military or law enforcement background (mall security guard does count). In lieu of that, a retail outlet employee with a few facial scars and a chainsaw for a hand will do.
The ability to come up with snappy one-liners such as "No need to lose your head," or "You've got to pull yourself together, man!"

Those traits that are not correlated with success after (most likely) a top-secret, government black-ops "living-dead" research program subject escapes from a high-security lab and wreaks havoc on humankind as we know it:

A martyr complex. Key phrases to listen for include "I'll hold them off …" or "Maybe I can buy the group some time." As a note, these individuals might work out for a while, but keep a full succession pipeline at the ready.
A sensitive sense of smell and active gag reflex. Note: be mindful of reasonable accommodation requirements.
One who is easily tripped while running or is prone to twisted ankles. You know who you are.
Those who react to stress or deadlines by falling to the ground, curling into a fetal position and screaming for their Mommy.
Those with a significant other in the workplace. Murphy's Law doubles during zombie incursions. I've crunched the numbers.
A large cranium, exposed brain and/or a bacony body odor.

HR's Role in the Zombie Apocalypse

Here are some other areas where a solid HR background will be particularly helpful after Z-day that I might pursue in future installments of this blog. I'll keep them coming for whatever pockets of civilization hold out or until I'm inevitably … well … let's not dwell on that right now.

Change Management

It helps to envision this, or any apocalypse, as what it is: a paradigm shift, or one big change management initiative opportunity. This one just happens to be driven by the need to survive, destroy or possibly find a cure for a staggering horde of biohazardous reanimated corpses.

First, I think a "Who Moved My Cheese?" seminar might be in order. As you assemble your group of rag-tag survivors, you'll probably find many who are resistant to the work and lifestyle changes required after all the hoopla a zombie apocalypse entails. Some will be traumatized after watching friends and family being devoured or possibly infected - which probably necessitated a tear-stained, Old Yeller style goodbye in the back yard.

I think this is a good time for some straightforward corporate pragmatism and strategic planning.

Human Capital Measurement

While coming up with effectiveness metrics and performance goals will be a bit challenging (quality of attrition takes on new meaning), some metrics should now take care of themselves. Seriously, there's no need to do those T.P.S. reports in triplicate anymore.

Strategic Alignment

Those who don't run with the group aren't dissenters in need of a goal review; they're zombie bait.

Time Off and Leave Policy

It's important to let fellow survivors/employees know that, while their feelings are valid and understandable, there is no bereavement leave policy in place and they'll just have to suck it up. If possible, try to get them to focus that excess emotion on the job at hand.

Sometimes all people need to get back on track is a push in the right direction … and a machete or high-powered rifle with plenty of ammo.

Talent Acquisition

Bringing new talent on board should be as simple as checking for a pulse and - this is important - making sure there are NO VISIBLE BITE WOUNDS.

But that doesn't mean a little onboarding won't help make a traumatized, adrenaline-pumped survivor move past that "last man on earth" mentality and bring them back to the world of teamwork. A friendly face, a helpful mentor to explain why they should keep a last bullet for themselves, or just somebody handing them a baseball bat with some nails driven through it may be all it takes to make the right first impression.

Teamwork

Zombies are all about teamwork. Survivors, and especially HR, should be too.

Contingency Planning is a Must

Don't panic every time you see disheveled, drooling automatons blundering around the office, especially on Mondays. And if your co-workers are emitting offensive odors and communicating with grunts, it doesn't necessarily mean Z-Day has arrived. They may have just had lunch from the taco truck that pulls up in the back lot.

But if you see somebody mumbling about the need for brains and banging into walls, yet still making their way unsteadily toward the water cooler, start looking around for an emergency exit or means of inflicting some serious cranial trauma.

As a final note, if you're looking for me, I'll be holed up at our local Lowes or Home Depot (conveniently located across the street from each other, although the Lowes will probably be closed) until such time as I can clear off a medium-sized ship, establish supplies and set to sea.

If you want in, the password is three sharp raps in quick succession followed by anything other than a sickly gurgling moan or growl, the word "brains" or "Dude! Open up! They're right behind me!"

Happy Halloween! And good luck, meatbags!

Supplemental Journal Entry: 10/27/2011

Wow! That HR conference in D.C. was a blast! What a great networking opportunity.

Too bad all those people came down sick on the last day. Now they're all getting on planes and flying home.

But things aren't much better now that I'm back home. Five people called in to the office today, and it sounds like half of the ones that showed up look like presenteeism poster-children. Good thing I've been hibernating and flextiming it from home to blog the conference.

But honestly, even now while I write this, I can see people walking by outside that look all sickly and out of it.

Great! One of them is coming up to the door. What a pain! Better go see what they want …

Leadership Competencies for the Coming Zombie Apocalypse

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:40:00 GMT

A brooding persona - most likely from the loss of loved ones, and the pervasive stink of rotting human flesh - but still a resilient optimist.
An individual who's not easily startled, freaked-out or pushed to the edge of sanity.
A willingness to delegate authority (e.g. "How about you go check out that noise …").
A military or law enforcement background (mall security guard does count). In lieu of that, a retail outlet employee with a few facial scars and a chainsaw for a hand will do.
The ability to come up with snappy one-liners such as "No need to lose your head," or "You've got to pull yourself together, man!"

A martyr complex. Key phrases to listen for include "I'll hold them off …" or "Maybe I can buy the group some time." As a note, these individuals might work out for a while, but keep a full succession pipeline at the ready.
A sensitive sense of smell and active gag reflex. Note: be mindful of reasonable accommodation requirements.
One who is easily tripped while running or is prone to twisted ankles. You know who you are.
Those who react to stress or deadlines by falling to the ground, curling into a fetal position and screaming for their Mommy.
Those with a significant other in the workplace. Murphy's Law doubles during zombie incursions. I've crunched the numbers.
A large cranium, exposed brain and/or a bacony body odor.

Dress Codes: Keeping Up Appearances, Not Productivity

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:00:00 GMT

As I sit in my office, Bermuda shorts and sandals tucked under my desk and a casual button-down shirt above, I think I can say without any bias that, no - how one dresses does not have an impact on productivity, professionalism or engagement. A jacket doesn't make the man, a tie doesn't focus the mind, dress shoes don't energize the body and slacks bestow no known superpower. You can dress for success all you want, but it won't actually make you better at your job.

That said, why is it that so many organizations maintain and enforce a dress code? First, for years people have been told that how one looks does improve performance. Some swear that hard data exists showing that business formal dress heightens alertness, improves manners, promotes professionalism, reduces tardiness and absenteeism, and increases engagement in the workplace. For them, being crisp and polished shows pride and being well dressed exudes authority.

It's a pervasive attitude - nevertheless, there are no definitive studies I've reviewed that show it to be true. And actually, if you check sources, a lot of the propaganda that's out there was sponsored by either the makers of formal wear or, since the rise of business casual, khaki and polo shirt outlets. For every study showing that business formal dress improves productivity by creating a professional environment, there's another showing that casual comfort does the same by increasing employee morale. But most non-anecdotal, controlled studies simply show little or no affect in either direction. And remember that morale is not engagement - a common misnomer.

Not surprisingly, employees tend to think casual comfort is more productive, while employers want their team members to look sharp. Neither contention shows a causal link, though. Really.

The second and more important reason dress codes are put in place is that they are an element of corporate culture, image and branding. While I might contend that clothing won't make you better at your job, it is true that it might make others perceive you as being better at your job.

A recent Ipsos Global @dvisory: Proper Attire in the Workplace global study of attitudes in 24 countries showed that "45% of workers think someone wearing casual work clothes is more productive in their job than someone wearing a more prescribed workplace or business attire … but 55% of workers believe someone wearing a more prescribed workplace or business attire is more productive in their job than someone wearing casual work clothes." A slight bias, but also one that the study shows can be much more pronounced in certain regions. My personal dress code is fairly normal … in Hungaria.

In general, people expect lawyers, bankers and executives to wear ties, office workers should at least wear business or smart casual, and many other professions and work settings require some type of uniform, be they scrubs, overalls or a monogrammed shirt. How else are appropriate rolls and social norms to be determined at a glance? And in the above mentioned Ipsos study, "two-thirds (65%) of workers said that senior managers should always be more dressed up than employees." So though they want to be judged by their work and not their wardrobe, most will still assign status and importance to the guy with the tie.

Of course how this plays out depends on your industry and line of work. While I'd be shocked to see a bank officer dressed like Shaggy from Scooby Doo, a video game tester would gain no cred from a tie - at least not one that didn't depict Mario on a field of mushrooms or have an iPod docking station built in. And different generations will always bring their unique attitudes to the workplace; not necessarily more casual, but something different none the less (eg. given a sharp stick, kids today will pierce anything). This has made defining business casual increasingly precarious over the years.

There are always ebbs, flows and pervasive trends in ideas about what's appropriate to wear to work. And while the workplace has progressed to increasingly more casual attire since the seventies, the shift to street casual for professionals has pulled back since the Dot-com bubble burst forced many a maverick to get a grownup job. Right now, business or smart casual is the norm for most, with the occasional relaxed casual day thrown in for a morale booster.

But no matter how casual it gets, dress codes - or at least some semblance of guidelines - are still a good thing to have in place. Why? Because there's always somebody that's going to push it and take things too far in the forms of a tattered jean, bare midriff, too-short skirt or a t-shirt bearing an offensive (to someone) message. Somebody might even show up with no clothes … and then you'll have to deal with that mess with no clear policy on the books.

If you're worried about enforcement, remember that there's a weird interplay when it comes to dress codes as far as career advancement is concerned. While most surveys say that employees (especially those in their 20s) value more casual work environments and that this can help to retain high-performers, it's also true that dressing less formally leads to less recognition for accomplishments and less professional respect or regard on the part of colleagues. And dressing up for hiring interviews is business formal, with very little leeway. One way cited to promote "business appropriate" attire is for managers to frame it as a good choice for advancement and recognition. Again, creative environments may vary.

As a final thought, keep in mind when designing a dress or appearance code to craft it carefully and apply it consistently to avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Private businesses usually have a lot of leeway in this area, but reasonable accommodation should always be considered. Whether deemed necessary from a legal standpoint or not, religious or cultural accommodations generally have a positive impact on engagement and productivity, as they reflect positively on an organizations image in regard to diversity and inclusion.

Dress codes are about keeping up appearances and standards, not productivity and engagement. For customer-facing positions, base your decisions on the customers' expectations and you'll usually be okay.

I'm always surprised by how passionate people feel about dress and appearance policies. Share your thoughts and let me know how your organization views business appropriate attire.

Is It Time to Update Your Sexual Harassment Policy?

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:06:33 GMT

The most recent very public political sex scandals have once again opened the door to double entedres in our national dialogue, which have proliferated in print and media coverage as well as talk shows. And let's face it - the guffaws and giggles related to quips and plays on the name "Weiner" have proven to be difficult to avoid. But with all the subtlety of a "that's what she said" joke, the sobering crash and burn of the once highly esteemed House Rep. Anthony Weiner (D, NY) has focused some on the need to review and possibly update their organization's sexual harassment and appropriate conduct policies.

The easily targeted surname, politicized scandal and fallout and the "keepin' it classy" discourse of late night TV aside, what can be gathered from Weiner's obviously compromised insight and judgment? At the very least, it is a reminder to seriously consider how the harassment and appropriate conduct landscape has changed in light of new technology and social networking venues.

Does your company's sexual harassment policy cover all the bases? What about "sexting" or inappropriate pictures sent via company equipment or networks? What about semi-racy pictures taken in the company gym and posted on Facebook or Twitter? Or simply having an officer of your organization implicated in something that, whether illegal or just … I don't know … creepy, reflects back on your carefully managed corporate culture and brand? And have you even considered how the attitudes and behaviors of Millennials, who tend to get technically creative and social networky about everything, may require a little more management than ye' ol' sexual harassment onboarding video was prepared to cover? Chances are pretty good that your organization's video is quick becoming outdated, even if it was developed a year or two ago.

Perhaps the RNC and DNC aren't the best role models but, then again, what can you do when your organization's selection policies are subject to voters, PACs and special interest groups (though you'd think in light of their track records they'd have their conduct policies written in six-foot high burning letters on the DC mall by now). But even if our political leaders are a lost cause, at least one government institution has stepped up and is taking this issue very seriously.

The U.S. military, in all branches, has struggled with sexual harassment and assault problems and continues to confront the issue head-on. When looking for updates and thought leadership on the issue, the 2011 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military from the Department of Defense might be a good place to start.

Women have made major inroads into the traditionally male culture of military institutions and now comprise almost 20% of active duty personnel, with almost all officer and enlisted communities opened up. With military missions occurring in highly stressful, team-based and often isolated environments, the need for aggressive strategies to prevent sexual harassment and assault is a vital concern. And with significant influxes of Millennials, military institutions are also working to better understand and reach a new generation with innovative new programs, such as a pilot Bystander Intervention Program and more established Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) program. These initiatives use intensive leadership training that is then passed on through peer-to-peer coaching to encourage spot intervention when risky behavior is observed.

Another good source for information and practices in preventing sexual harassment is a USDOL publication that draws some private-sector parallels with the military. Women in the Construction Workplace: Providing Equitable Safety and Health Protection provides guidance for the predominately male centric and misogynistic construction industry for dealing with the increasing number of women entering the field. Inequalities and a hostile work environment were reported by about 88% of women studied in the surveys supporting the report, and there are some recommendations that should be considered in any industry looking to revamp their organizations approaches to preventing sexual harassment.

And for information specific to dealing with the attitudes of the incoming Millennial generation, one good source is a 2010 publication from Cambridge University Press titled Sex, Power and Consent: Youth culture and the unwritten rules - available on Amazon for about $30. Though predominately focused on education institutions, the book offers insights on generational attitudes, harassment using technology, education and prevention programs.

So if your organization hasn't looked at its sexual harassment policy lately, maybe it's time to review, revamp and make sure you're keeping with the times.

Becoming an Employer of Choice

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:48:00 GMT

It seems strange to urge organizations to devote the extra time and effort to become an employer of choice at a time when unemployment is rampant and HR departments are flooded with resumes - why aim to attract even more candidates?

The answer isn't complicated; the underlying cause of the Great Recession and the slow recovery is that, fundamentally, the world economy is changing. As Thomas Friedman points out in The World Is Flat, "Something big…is happening at warp speed and directly or indirectly [is] going to touch a lot more people on the planet at once."

In the past, many companies gained a competitive advantage through globalization and tapping into unexploited labor pools. Nonessential work was outsourced in order to focus on core competencies, and companies invested heavily in technology to create productivity gains faster than the competition.

The recent recession has clearly demonstrated that those strategies will not be enough to compete in the next economy. The world is increasingly global and connected; technology, especially social media, feels like an out-of-control freight train headed directly at corporations. The next economy is also incredibly diverse socially, culturally and politically. But at its core, it is obsessively innovation-driven - to build and sustain a competitive advantage, companies must continuously innovate. In i4cp's The Critical Human Capital Issues of 2011 study of more than 400 companies, the percentage of high market performers indicating that innovation is critically important has increased dramatically over the past year.

But there is a big problem for U.S. organizations that want to innovate to stay competitive in this shifting global economy. Innovation requires a workforce with deeper knowledge and skills than ever before in areas such as science and math. However, the U.S. education system is failing to produce such workers.

While the best schools in the U.S. are still the best in the world, the gap between the best and the rest is widening. Today, one in four incoming freshmen will not graduate from high school, and in the largest metro areas, fully half will not graduate. On standardized international tests, 12th graders score in the bottom quartile in math and science. As a result, colleges are significantly increasing the number of remedial courses required for entering freshmen. A deeper problem is that most graduates are being educated to perform in the past economy. It is estimated that at best, the country may be producing only 10% of the skilled workers needed for the next economy.

Being an Employer of Choice

The bottom line is the talent supply is shrinking, and there is no easy remedy for this problem. Companies will need strategies to attract the best and the brightest from this smaller labor pool, and a popular tactic is receiving praise as an employer of choice. But many question the value of being recognized on lists such as Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For, which highlight companies with enviable benefits, great work culture and job satisfaction. Beyond the assured flood of resumes that result from being named to such a list, is a good employer brand worth the time and effort often associated with ranking well?

Companies that participated in a September 2010 i4cp focus group said "maybe." While most of the practitioners were not fully sold on the ROI of such lists, many cited the same benefits, drawbacks and considerations:

Pros:

It's good for benchmarking and auditing against external market competitors.
It requires pushing recruiting efforts beyond simple representation metrics.
Participation reinforces organizational commitment.

Cons:

It's often a two- to three-month process occupying multiple full-time employees.
It requires open sharing of various organizational metrics.
Dissonance can occur if rankings vary from employees' experiences.
Positive movement in rankings can lead to a lack of executive focus in the future.

Recommendations:

Start with smaller, more specialized lists and internal evaluations.
Have the technical capability needed to gather the required information.
Determine who will be responsible for the effort; make sure to keep the same people involved year-to-year for consistency.
Some questions are open to interpretation; be consistent with answers, such as tiers for supplier diversity and executive pay grades.
Answering one question generally will open up several others, and many lists add questions and levels of complexity over time.
It's often more about taking an inventory and actually taking the survey than the results. Don't do it to make the list; do it as a benchmark and for other nuggets of value.
Don't forget to evaluate whether the effort was worth the information gained.

Health benefits company WellPoint Inc. has dedicated resources to this effort, and as a result has consistently pushed its rankings onto several lists. For instance, WellPoint ranked 50th on the 2010 DiversityInc Top 50 List, and according to chief diversity officer Linda Jimenez, "There's a wealth of information in terms of benchmarking that we've received. It's an opportunity to listen to and share best practices with similar organizations. We will generally utilize the benchmarking reports that are generated by these awards so that we can compare ourselves against our peers."

Jimenez said constant and consistent metrics gathering is required to keep initiatives on course, and third-party awards are just one part of that strategy. "What's important is that we engage in periodic pulse checks of our workforce representation, demographics, associate engagement, supplier diversity, etc. We keep track of our progress month by month to identify gaps and opportunities and to readjust our strategy."

Five Steps for Talent Branding

While public recognition as an employer of choice is good, it is yesterday's strategy. Being competitive in the next economy means employers must execute talent branding. According to Mark Schumann and Libby Sartain, co-authors of Brand for Talent, this means "marketing the employer brand to segments of the potential and current workforce to become known as a magnet for talent." Leaders have to focus on attracting the right talent and determine where there are talent gaps and what can be done to improve or eliminate them. Following are five simple steps to create a talent brand:

Use talent mapping. Talent mapping segments the workforce into separate roles based on their business value. Not all talent is created equal; talent leaders need a method to differentiate critical or pivotal talent. It is important not to analyze roles by job descriptions (too narrow), or job families (too large), or by people in those roles - that's succession planning.
Create meaning for the talent brand. Creating an external talent brand requires leadership to have a talent presence internally and externally. For instance, speaking at events and meetings and sharing best practices and experiences is critical. It is important to balance internal and external branding because the strategy is to build and buy talent. This also means creating a brand that is sustainable and not reliant on key individuals. GE is an example of a sustainable brand that can withstand difficult times and thrive in good times.
Cultivate a learning culture. Talented employees want to keep building their skills. There are few lifetime employment opportunities, which means the ticket to marketability is training and education. The conventional wisdom used to be that if a company made employees marketable, they'd leave at the first opportunity. Today it's typically the opposite - the more training and development available to employees, the more likely it is the employer will retain them.
Focus on the supervisors. Employees rely on their immediate supervisor more than any other individual for information, recognition and motivation. Surveys consistently show that pay is not as critical to attracting and retaining talent as many people think. Low pay is dissatisfying, but is often overemphasized; conversely, high pay alone won't keep people around. The best people stay because they're engaged and challenged by work that makes them better at what they do, and because their managers motivate them. Investing in mentoring programs and supervisor training can pay off, and so can understanding where the organization lacks engagement.
Don't ignore work/life issues. Just as employers got used to giving employees more flexibility in balancing work and life commitments, the idea of flexibility changed. Thanks primarily to technology, now flexibility translates into the blurring of work and life. Employers can help employees find the right balance.

An unprecedented storm is gathering that will make attracting and retaining key talent more difficult in the future. It's not difficult to predict what employers will do; most will wait until there is a burning platform and then react by bidding up wages, raiding competitors for employees, inducing older workers to stay on the job and outsourcing whatever work they can.

Companies looking to lead in the next economy already have developed strategies to build a sustainable talent brand. When these talent shortages occur, employees will have more employment choices than ever, and they will seek work environments that fit their needs.

A company's leadership is the cornerstone on which to build an environment that attracts and retains key talent, in particular, the immediate supervisors. Employees want supervisors to build relationships with them, to be the ultimate communicators - people who provide open and honest information on the organization's mission, systems and policies. Employees want supervisors to treat them with respect and dignity and to provide instant feedback, positive reinforcement and recognition.

Immediate supervisors who already define this role are the most important people to a talent brand. Yet many companies inadvertently do everything they can to block supervisors from attracting and retaining top talent. For example, downsizing has spread supervisors so thin there often isn't enough time to mentor individual employees. Further, supervisors are still rewarded for getting widgets out the door, not for attracting, developing and retaining talent.

People tend to do what they are measured by and rewarded for. Supervisors know it is important to spend time developing employee relationships, but they are not rewarded when they do it well, nor are they held accountable when they do it poorly or not at all.

A storm is coming. Those organizations with strong talent brands will survive and emerge stronger than ever. Will your company be among them?

This article was originally published in the May 2011 edition of Talent Management magazine.

Train Wreck or Next Big Idea?

Wed, 25 May 2011 17:24:00 GMT

So this guy calls you up and tells you he has a great idea and he asks if you want to join him in starting a small business. You've met him a few times here and there - you're both members of the same hobby club. You think he's a little arrogant but an okay guy overall.

He tells you that he has already started putting his dream team together. His compatriots are: A guy he met in junior high; a friend of a friend's neighbor; a nay-saying contrarian who is grudgingly investing in the venture even though he's sure it will fail; an avowed card-carrying communist who also thinks the company will flame out in no time; and a 14-year-old high school kid who can only work part-time, because, you know, he's still in high school and all.

Not an attractive prospect, right?

No doubt your answer would be something along the lines of: "Gosh, thanks for thinking of me, but you know, I have about three more months of unemployment benefits coming in and I hate to shoot myself in the foot with that … maybe I'll check back with you in a couple of months ..."

And so this guy - this acquaintance who was nattering on about wanting to name his little enterprise after a piece of produce moved on, formed his little start-up, and you continued on with your life.

Years later you would sit in an airport lounge in Newark wanting to punch yourself in the face as you watched gazillionaire Steve Jobs bound lithely around a stage in his edgy black turtleneck and jeans ensemble showing off his snappy little iPod invention while you were on your way to yet another grubby trade show in Omaha. Oh yeah, and those guys we mentioned above? Gazillionaires.

Most of us like to think that we are smart people who would recognize a diamond-studded brass ring when we saw it and that we would jump through flaming hoops to lunge at it, but chances are pretty good that we don't. Because we look for success - or the promise of it - to look a certain way and when we don't see it we quickly move on.

The people who found themselves in the labor room when Apple Computer was born were not necessarily risk-takers. Several of them had to have their arms twisted before they sighed and half-heartedly signed on. In the case of the 14-year-old, he probably didn't know any better at best, and/or it probably seemed like a much better employment option than the local fast food franchise.

So what was it about the guys (and one gal) who threw caution to the wind and their respective lots in with Steve Jobs? What did they have (if anything) in common? These are questions that came to my mind as I read Jay Yarow's recent piece on the first ten employees who joined Jobs and Apple's first CEO Michael Scott (yes, that's his name) on an adventure that ensured that they will never have to work again unless they want to. Yarow, an editor at the Business Insider attempted to track down the original ten for a "where are they now?" piece and, failing to locate all of them for interviews, spent time talking with Scott, who provided some insights into who the original ten were.

#1 Steve Wozniak, Apple's official "employee number one" was a tech junkie who was headed to a job at HP in Oregon because he was convinced that "Apple would crash and burn," Yarow says. It took some convincing, but he decided to stick around and see what happened. Bet he's glad he did.

#2 Steve Jobs was given the employee number two designation for the sole purpose of irritating him, according to Scott, who told Yarow: "I know I didn't give it [employee number one designation] to Jobs because I thought that would be too much."

#3 Mike Markkula was the money man, making an investment worth about $250,000 at the time and in exchange he took 30% of the company. He also helped manage the company, develop a business plan, hired the first CEO, and talked Wozniak (see #1) into sticking around.

#4 Bill Fernandez met Steve Jobs (see #2) at Cupertino Junior High School and he was also a neighbor and friend of Steve Wozniak (see #1). He was Apple Computer's first hire when they incorporated in 1977. He worked on both the Apple I and Apple II computers and in the 1980s was a member of the Apple Macintosh development team.

#5 Communist Rod Holt was a highly regarded designer who was skeptical of joining Apple and later insisted that Steve Jobs (see #2) "conned" him into taking a job. Holt developed the power supply for the Apple II.

#6 Randy Wigginton was a student at Bellarmine College Preparatory in San Jose who was interested in computers. He heard about the Homebrew Computer Club but, according to Yarow, "had no way to get there until he started getting rides with another club member, Steve Wozniak (see #1). The two hit it off, and Wigginton became one of Apple's earliest employees.

#7 Michael "Scotty" Scott was Apple's first CEO, brought in to run the company by its first investor (see #3). Scott is a confirmed Trekkie, who, according to Yarow, is currently working on developing a Star Trek tricoder that will allow people to identify gemstones in the forest.

#8 Chris Espinosa was in high school when he started his part-time gig with Apple. He says he was at school when employee numbers were assigned, which is why his number is so high. Espinosa is still with Apple.

#9 The only woman of the original group, Sherry Livingston was hired as Apple's first secretary and the CEO's right hand, according to Yarow.

#10 Gary Martin believed that Apple was doomed to fail from the start but stayed on until 1983. Martin is now a private investor and is on the board of Canadian tech company LeoNovu.

In thinking about the original ten hires at Apple, it's obvious that luck and happenstance played huge roles, as did the timing, the state of technological advancement at the time and the "right place/right time" phenomenon. That aside, my question is: How do we spot winners or winning propositions, be they opportunities within our current employment situation or elsewhere?

Here's what I came up with:

Look for commonality in interests and passion when considering joining a team. The one thing the Apple founders had (other than the fact that they all lived in California in close proximity to one another), was that they were all geeks. They shared a common interest in computing and science.

To the degree that you (and your spouse/partner) can stand it, take a risk. If you have a feeling that there is some potential there and your gut is nudging you, close your eyes and jump. You may not land initially where you had hoped but the trip may be worth it. And eventually, who knows? You could wind up on Dancing with the Stars, like Wozniak.

The benefits and power of networking cannot be underestimated. Long before the emergence of social networking there was plain old vanilla networking. And it worked. The Apple guys networked with one another and became tightly connected through their common interests and reaching out to connect with others who shared those interests. Some of them were members of the same club and developed relationships through that group. So put yourself out there, connect with fellow lovers of whatever it is you love in a real way. This can start with joining affinity groups on LinkedIn, for example, but don't be passive unless you are into passivity and letting life happen to you. Make your presence known in a group, take a stand, establish a voice, get off your butt and participate in a meaningful way. Here's a crazy idea: show up in person.

Switch off the auto-pilot button. Pay attention to the confluence of what's going on around you. Do you have an opportunity that will involve working with people you admire or just plain like? Is the prospect of this project one that jostles you from your current apathetic coma? Are you daydreaming about all the things that might emerge from this project and what your contributions might be? Has another opportunity recently fallen through - is this fortuitous timing? Wake up and look around.

The next time someone floats an idea or opportunity by you, take a beat to actually truly think it over before you respond. And if those ideas and opportunities aren't coming your way, ask yourself why. Because they're out there.

Dude, where's my recovery?

Tue, 10 May 2011 12:58:00 GMT

Despite optimistic murmurings about the economic recovery, which started in 2009 when some economists declared that the recession had ended, real progress seems illusive. And those murmurings are really starting to annoy me. I keep hearing about the post-recession this and the post-recession that, but I'm not feeling it. Are you? Here's what I'm seeing in real life:

My neighbors are still unemployed. Of my three neighbors in closest proximity, all of whom worked in different industries but were downsized the same week in 2010, two are still out of work and the third is underemployed. Both Pete and Jim have been out of work for a year now and Norma is working part-time. Several other neighbors are moonlighting on second jobs to make ends meet because their spouses are unemployed.

Short sales and all-out house abandonments are still raging. Maybe it's worse here in Florida, but the number of darkened homes in my neighborhood is holding steady. People have walked away and no one has picked up those properties, many of which are on the waterfront. Some of my unemployed neighbors keep themselves busy by taking care of the yards of abandoned homes, which at least keeps the grass from giving away the fact that our former neighbors quietly packed up their cars and drove away in the middle of the night.

Costs keep going up, but the paycheck (like the song) remains the same. For those of us fortunate enough to have been continuously employed through the recession, the cost of getting to work keeps going up, starting with more expensive gasoline. In the meantime, employers have shifted more costs to employees, so premiums and out of pocket fees for heath care have risen. Food costs more - everything costs more. And for the most part we can't keep up with those rising costs because pay is unchanged. Except (of course) CEO pay, which is up 11% (thanks for that, media outlets, great way to start the work week). What a relief - no more worries for CEOs about how to budget that yacht club initiation fee this summer. Yeah. I said it.

We're in abusive relationships with our banks. It's almost sad - like an icky, dysfunctional relationship - we keep hoping things will get better but they don't. Although interest rates remain in the dumper, people continue to choose to make deposits to commercial banks. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that deposits have increased 10% since 2008, to the tune of $8.1 trillion. But the cash that folks have stashed in bank accounts is doing little to nothing in terms of working for them, with earned interest pretty much at zero and, in reality, the money we have set aside is moving us backwards when we take rapidly rising costs into consideration.

We are on the endangered species list. When I say we, I mean people who went to college and maybe took on student loan debt or worked our way through school or a combination of the two. We entertained dreams that seemed realistic at the time - finding a job, maybe if we were lucky, in a field we loved and in a profession doing something we cared about. We hoped to maybe have a family and be able to provide for them, nothing lavish, but perhaps one day we would own a home with some grass we could mow on the weekends. Maybe we even day-dreamed about taking our 1.5 kids and the family dog on vacation, or camping or fishing once in a while, like we did with our own parents.

But most of us just can't afford it. We're too busy working to pay the bills or perhaps too paranoid about leaving the office to go on vacation for fear we will indeed prove to be non-essential in our absence. Or we worry that if we spend the money on the family trip we will be caught up in a RIF a month or two later and be that much closer to joining the ranks of those squatting in their own homes or walking away after handing the keys to the bank.

Middle class dreams seemed attainable 10 years ago, but not so much now. The gap between the middle class and the wealthy is becoming a yawning chasm that's starting to look more like an abyss. As corporate profits rise we see median income falls, and sometimes all I want to do is roll up into a ball and watch a really bad Keanu Reeves movie. I like to believe that, for the most part, life is a most excellent adventure. But lately, it's been feeling totally bogus.

How are things in your neck of the woods? Are you seeing signs of recovery, or are you still waiting?

Cynical CEO: Facebook is for Losers

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:10:00 GMT

Here's the asinine question of the week I received from someone in the HR department in my company: can we free up budget dollars to invest in a Facebook-like application internally?

Talk about a career-limiting question.

Let me get something off my chest: if you are a heavy Facebook user, you might as well put a big "L" on your forehead. Why? Because in my opinion there are only 3 kinds of Facebook zealots: the Lonely, the Lovers of self (otherwise known as narcissists) and those who are Looking to get Lucky (I could have used another "L" word there, but this is a PG site). In many cases, it's a combination of all three.

And, just so you know, I'm on Facebook. I signed up several years ago because I felt I had to. I was under the impression that, if I was going to be "with it" from a social network perspective, I better be on MySpace, LinkedIn, Plaxo, Twitter and yes, Facebook. I also signed up for a bunch of others that have probably gone out of business by now.

I haven't posted anything on FaceBook other than my basic information when I set it up. The problem is, once I created a page on Facebook, all of these so-called "friends" came out of the woodwork. I couldn't believe the requests I got. Most aren't my real friends; they're people I may have met at some point in my life, but not people I want to hang out with. If I did, I would. But I "friended" them anyway. I'm not sure why; I guess I felt obligated or thought that it would be rude not to. The upshot is, I haven't talked to or even thought about the vast majority of these "friends" in years; probably because they fit one or more of my 3 "L" categories.

Let me give you an example. Here's a real-time scan of what's going on with some of the "friends" from my Facebook wall:

A former employee of mine posted a picture of her baby sleeping.
A current employee posted that a new Star Wars movie is coming out.
A guy I went to high school with - and last talked to the day I graduated - said he's a happy guy but cold.
The wife of a good friend said she got her beach stickers today.
A former administrative assistant posted her horoscope.
A real friend posted an uplifting quote.
Another "acquaintance" wants me to play something called "Farmville." I have no idea what it is, but I'm having trouble thinking of a more boring name for an online game.
A guy I know in Japan posted something in Japanese. And something in French.
Another former employee posted a picture of her baby sleeping.

I kid you not! That's EXACTLY what's on my FaceBook wall right now. Riveting stuff. It's amazing that I can resist looking at FaceBook more than once a month. In truth, I'm not really sure why I look at it that frequently.

Now, you may think I'm a cold-hearted bastard. Maybe I am. But I'll bet my beach stickers there's thousands of CEO's that have the same perspective I do.

Here's the rub. Corporate executives everywhere are besieged by requests from their IT department, their marketing people and especially the HR department to "bring a Facebook-like application" inside the company. Are you kidding me!? Do you think I want my employees spending half their day on internal drivel when they're already spending half their day on external drivel?

Sorry for the rant, but I try not to hire losers and I sure don't want to create more by giving them a loser-creation-application like Facebook. I worry about productivity enough as it is. An internal Facebook-like application in addition to the real Facebook? We might as well just cut our earnings in half right now.

Now, I'm not a total Luddite. I can completely understand the need for an internal social networking system, particularly if that system helps us be more competitive and productive. If we can identify and locating top talent when we need it, we'll have something I've wanted for years. If there's an opening in one area of the company, I'd love to have a system that identifies possible candidates who didn't necessarily apply for it since they might not have known about it. Even if we have projects that require a specialized talent, or negotiations that require someone to speak a foreign language, having a system that helps us know where that talent resides could be a major boon. And I can see where a system that can be updated when employees develop new skills, one that act as a "baseball card" for employees, would be very helpful. Like an online resume that gets continually updated.

Wait. I know a system like that. And ironically it begins with an "L." It's called LinkedIn and it's the only social network I actually find useful. If someone pitched that to me internally, I'd sign off on it before you could tag a picture of your baby sleeping.

But I doubt HR will ever bring something like that to me. They're probably too busy playing Farmville or posting their horoscope.

Losers.

Make the Fat Cats Prove Their Worth

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:58:41 GMT

Two bits of compensation news caught my attention recently. The first was a Wall Street Journal story reporting that Fortune 500 CEOs are once again raking in multi-million dollar bonuses, a tribute to their lone struggles in coming up with the brilliant strategies that have miraculously restored the nation's economy and brought their companies back to profitability.

The second bit of news is that, while merit raises are slowly coming back for the minions who've been under pay freezes for the last three years, the rate of those increases will likely not reflect the cost-of-living increases and diminished healthcare benefit coverage that average workers have shouldered during that time. Also, it will be up to the individual to prove their worth when asking for a raise - with average performance not being good enough for a 3% increase anymore.

I'll start by saying that, in fairness, many of the CEO's cited in the WSJ article have quite publicly forgone bonus compensation over multiple recessionary years and are only claiming their added booty now that profit margins and stakeholder payouts are looking up. In fact, the new financial-overhaul law that took effect this year requires that every business whose stock-market value exceeds $75 million must let investors weigh in (to whatever effect) on rewards for the top brass at annual meetings. So if a company agrees to millions in bonuses for a top exec based on certain preset goals, I certainly think they should pay what they promised.

But let's face it, when your annual bonus is equal to ten times the average worker's lifetime household earnings, I don't think a little added scrutiny or requiring way above average performance ratings is out of line. After all, if the average worker who is living paycheck-to-paycheck has to exceed expectations to be considered worthy of a raise that amounts to 10,000 times less than a CEO's bonus payment, I personally want to see more rigorous proof of worth. Besides, CEO's probably have people to keep track of and market their accomplishments for them.

Far from wanting to rant about how this resurgence in excessive top executive compensation is being justified, however, I would just like to take a little time to talk about team efforts. After all, it hardly seems likely that these leaders could be achieving the goals they're being rewarded for without a dedicated, hardworking group of followers. Seeing as how a lot of brilliant executives' strategies during the recession seemed to involve laying off all but the most essential and productive personnel - many of whom were then required to absorb multiple jobs and roles, eschew vacations and contribute staggering amounts of un-compensated labor - it seems … let's say unappreciative … to signal a recovery by doling out millions in bonus money at the top while forcing the underlings to put in additional effort just to secure the scraps that trickle down.

Face it, if you couldn't find a reason to get rid of a particular functionary over the last few years, maybe they've already proved their worth. And when you only have high-performing employees left, at this point they may not appreciate the added hoop-jumping required for compensation increases that used to be considered a base hygiene factor in maintaining a workforce. In the face of that perceived ingratitude, why wouldn't they be more inclined to take their leave and go prove their worth somewhere else?

With the economic recovery still in its infancy and a brewing talent shortage and war on the horizon, organizations will soon realize that overcoming challenges as a team needs to culminate in sharing rewards as a team. Getting compensation plans up to date and competitive now (as Google did in November 2010) will be a big factor in retaining the lean and engaged team that has kept organizations afloat through the bad times. And if those at the top are truly part of that team and believe in a sustainable future for the enterprise, they may want to save taking the lion's share of the rewards for a later date.

Is your organization looking to modify compensation policies to offset anticipated post-recovery turnover rates that could reach 75% of the workforce? For top-performing executives, how do you defend a policy that doles out hundreds (if not thousands) of times the rewards to one employee while denying long overdue cost-of-living increases to hundreds (if not thousands) of other employees?

Nine Tips for Disaster Preparedness

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:23:00 GMT

While it may be some time before the extent of the devastation in Japan - both in human life and economic impact - is fully determined, police have already confirmed over 11,004 deaths and 17,339 others who are missing, according to Japan's Kyodo news service. All told, the number of deaths estimated by the Japanese government may exceed 18,400.

Currently, concern is focused on fuel rods at three nuclear reactors at the Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which are believed to be in various stages of melting. Also, a container for spent fuel at a fourth reactor has been damaged and is leaking radioactivity. Japanese authorities have ordered the evacuation of a 19-mile radius around the plant while they work to restore power in hopes of bringing cooling systems back online. The U.S. has recommended that its citizens living within 50 miles of the plant evacuate the area or take shelter indoors. Approximately 180,868 people are staying in temporary shelters, while thousands of others are without power or clean water. Transportation and communications within the most affected areas is spotty.

Truly, disaster on this scale is something nobody wants to think about, but which organizations have to be prepared to deal with. Safety and security protocols for employees as well as company assets and business continuity are critical to plan for in advance and maintain, even to the extent of planning for the totally unexpected with scenarios that can utilize multiple flexible contingencies and guidelines.

There are also ripple effects from any event of this magnitude that require contingency planning. In the case of Japan, one factor has been the countries just-in-time supply chain, which in the wake of these disasters has begun affecting many businesses and trading partners in the region and around the globe. As radiation is now being found in some food and dairy products, any businesses sourcing farms in that area will also need to look to other options; and radiation traces are quickly being discovered around the globe. These concerns will likely expand as the extent of radiation contamination is continuously updated. Resources needed inside the worst hit areas will also impact supply chains for food, fuel and medicine that were previously directed elsewhere.

Harsh winter weather, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist threats and pandemic flus have all made headlines in recent years. Situations such as these, although unpleasant to contemplate, are all fodder for scenario planning. That is, organizations can develop scenarios around such issues and then draft up action plans - or at least a set of good ideas - to help them react more quickly when a real crisis emerges. This can help minimize disruption in case of emergencies.

In crafting possible tactics for dealing with crises, organizations should consider the following suggestions and principles:

Have emergency plans in place, written down, regularly updated and ready to deploy. Make sure those plans are as flexible as possible so they can be effective in a variety of circumstances. Don't wait until disaster strikes to build the flexible infrastructure you'll need to implement your plans. These plans should have an owner who is a senior executive involved in strategic planning.
Employee safety should always be the number-one priority. Whenever possible, cancel non-essential travel and have employees stay put until the crisis is over. Make travel decisions at the executive level, considering impact on business operations, the need for an on-site presence and the potential costs of rescheduling. Make special note of those with medical problems, as well as their required medical supplies and the availability of refills.
Keep communications flowing. Communicate your company's back-up plans and policys regularly with employees and ensure that employees communicate their status regularly through predetermined channels. Maintain links to appropriate authorities and monitoring agencies. Include travel departments and travel vendors in the process where necessary. Redundant and secondary communication channels are recommended, such as multiple but coordinated call-in lines located in different regions and monitoring of web-based and emergency services channels.
When appropriate, ask employees to make reasonable attempts to return to work in the aftermath of a crisis even as your company maintains flexibility and understanding of their circumstances. In some cases, contingent travel options may be equally inaccessible due to overburdening of those systems. Where applicable, having virtual work options and IT infrastructure that supports remote workers is optimal for maintaining productivity.
Make the most of regional offices or business units and set up pre-determined gathering hubs where stranded employees can connect. Map out where employees are and in what numbers and confirm contact details.
Alleviating worry and burden from a stranded or otherwise effected worker can positively impact short-term productivity, long-term engagement and morale levels. Absorbing costs and assuring security at home for those with child care and elder care responsibilities is a great comfort. Such over-and-above thinking in trying times will be appreciated and remembered.
While absences due to natural disasters are generally excusable, companies are not necessarily required to pay for time away from work. Clearly communicate telecommuting, flex-scheduling, paid time and unpaid time options, being as understanding to extenuating circumstances as possible. In cases where employees are stranded while on vacation, ask if they would consider using paid time as opposed to unpaid leave. If it's possible to make up time or swap schedules, this may also be preferable. Make sure that options are consistently offered to avoid discrimination claims.
Do not unreasonably burden workers who are able to report to work. In the event that staffing levels are seriously depleted for extended periods, scale workloads, adjust shift schedules and reset deadlines as needed to operate reasonably and sustainably.
Just because there's no direct effect of the specific event doesn't mean your business won't be affected somewhere along the line. Services, suppliers, partners and customers are all factors to account for. Make them a part of your scenario planning process. Consider what echoes and ripples could resonate out from the present situation.

It shouldn't take a catastrophic event to initiate a review of disaster preparedness and plans shouldn't be gathering dust between reviews. It's better to work on and streamline these plans between emergencies and not during a crisis. Although the current situation in Japan, a country with exemplary disaster planning protocols, shows that no amount of forethought can trump natures unpredictable nature, every layer of protection put in place has cushioned the impact of this tragedy to some degree. Response to this disaster has truly been a case of mounting the best response possible to a tragedy of epic proportions.

For more, a comprehensive list of resources, services and information - including EAP providers in Japan - is available from the Global Health Benefits Institute as a PDF document.

Please share your own disaster preparedness tips with other i4cp member companies. If your employees were affected by this tragedy, how has your organization responded and what plans did you have in place before hand?

Echoing the words of our friends at Osaka-based Takeda Pharmaceuticals: "We would like to express heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims, and we also sincerely wish the safety of the people affected by this earthquake and the earliest possible recovery of the relevant region."

Also, see how i4cp member companies are stepping up to aid Japan.

i4cp Member Companies Step Up to Aid Japan

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:52:00 GMT

In the wake of Japan's massive 9.0 earthquake, the resulting 23-foot tsunami and ongoing uncertainty about the compromised nuclear reactors, many corporations - including numerous i4cp member companies - have pledged support to both general relief efforts and to their own employees affected by this series of disasters. Many are not only making outright donations, but are matching employee donations, and/or making in-kind donations of products and services to help with the recovery efforts.

Microsoft, for instance, activated their disaster response protocol early-on to determine exactly where their support could provide the greatest assistance. They have initially pledged $2 million, including $250 thousand in cash as well as other in-kind contributions. They are also sponsoring employee donation matching programs with Microsoft Asia Pacific and U.S. employees. Other Microsoft response efforts include:

Reaching out to customers, local government, inter-government and nonprofit agencies to support relief efforts.
Working with customers and partners to conduct impact assessments.
Providing free incident support to help customers and partners impacted by the earthquake get their operations back up and running.
Offering no-cost temporary software licenses to all affected customers and partners as well as lead governments, nonprofit partners and institutions involved in disaster response efforts.
Making a cloud-based disaster response communications portal, based on Windows Azure, available to governments and nonprofits to enable them to communicate between agencies and directly with citizens.
Providing Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, and Lync Online at no cost for 90 days to business customers in Japan whose communications and collaboration infrastructure may be affected.

A host of i4cp member companies, as well as other top brands, have also stepped up to help, including:

Amway Japan and parent company Amway will provide about $1.2 million in cash and product donations to support relief efforts.

Eli Lilly has committed up to 100 million yen ($1.2 million).

General Electric pledged $5 million in humanitarian aid; in addition to the cash, equipment and services, GE is matching employee donations 100%, with more than $100,000 already donated by staffers.

Kraft is donating $200,000 to the Japanese Red Cross, in addition to matching employee contributions and donating food.

McDonald's is donating $2 million to the Red Cross.

Merck made an initial contribution of $1.25 million: $750,000 to Save the Children and $500,000 to the American Red Cross.

Novellus Systems is donating $1 million in relief aid.

Qualcomm is donating $1 million to Japan relief efforts and are providing communication technology assistance in the country as needed.

Starbucks is donating $1.2 million to the Red Cross.

Osaka, Japan-based Takeda Pharmaceuticals is donating 300 million yen ($3.75 million) to the Red Cross in Japan and has pledged additional support in the form of much needed pharmaceutical supplies.

Toyota, Aichi Japan-based Toyota, which has been continuously updating employees and stakeholders through its website, is donating 300 million yen ($3.75 million) to relief efforts and is matching donations from U.S. employees.

These efforts are in addition to specific help being given to employees working in or near the affected areas. Organizations with operations in Japan - and in some cases headquarters -have been making efforts to determine their employees' levels of security and, when necessary, making arrangements for employees and their families to get out of Japan or at least into areas outside of radiation evacuation zones. On top of other immediate loans and advances to employees who may need to rebuild or relocate, various employee assistance programs (EAPs) are also being pledged to help with medical and psychological trauma that will continue for years to come.

Ways to help

Several organizations are offering support to help victims of the Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami relief. Here are a few ways you can help:

NetHope, a collaboration of the world's leading humanitarian response organizations is mobilizing efforts to support aid agencies responding in the region.
The American Red Cross is accepting donations for Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami relief and is working closely with The Japanese Red Cross to help those most in need .
World Vision is mobilizing in response to the earthquake and tsunami.
Save the Children is responding to the needs of children and families affected by the earthquake and its aftermath. Donations can be made to Save the Children's Japan Earthquake Tsunami Children in Emergency Fund.
International Medical Corps is responding to the health needs of the disaster's victims.
Mercy Corps is working with its partner Charity Peace Winds Japan to accept donations.
AidMatrix is working with its partners to connect resources and material for various response efforts.

Also, the World Health Organization currently has a site set up for Japan nuclear concerns, which offers general information, FAQs, situation reports, travel and evacuation recommendations and technical guidance on the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis.

A comprehensive list of resources, services and information - including EAP providers in Japan - is available from the Global Health Benefits Institute as a PDF document.

Please share your own organizations contributions to the disaster relief effort with fellow i4cp members. Innovative and impactful ideas from responsible corporate citizens are essential in helping to alleviate human suffering and rebuild communities when disaster strikes.

Further information on disaster preparedness and a disaster rapid response checklist are also available from i4cp. Also, see our nine tips for disaster prepardness.

Why You Want to be on This List

Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:08:21 GMT

Fortune magazine recently released its 2011 "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" list which highlights companies with enviable perks, great work atmospheres and job satisfaction, yet we still strive to understand the "So What? Factor." What does it mean to be on the list? Outside of the flood of résumés flowing in to the HR departments of companies on the list (that will require screening) because some people want to take advantage of perks such as wine bars or Botox injections does it really matter about the list?

First we have to take a look at the underpinnings of how companies make the list...Fortune magazine states the following and you can read it here...

"Most of a company's score (two-thirds) is based on the results of the Institute's Trust Index survey, which is sent to a random sample of employees from each company. The survey asks questions related to their attitudes about management's credibility, job satisfaction, and camaraderie. The other third of the scoring is based on the company's responses to the Institute's Culture Audit, which includes detailed questions about pay and benefit programs, and a series of open-ended questions about hiring practices, internal communication, training, recognition programs, and diversity efforts."

So it would appear that this revolves around an organization's leadership, employee engagement, and employee value proposition that drive talent attraction and commitment. To a rational person, these are important factors to consider unless you are Paul Hebert of the blog Incentive Intelligence and the edgy Fistful of Talent posse. He writes in a recent blog titled "You Don't Need to Measure Employee Engagement" that while we continue to measure elements of employee engagement...we may not need to so. He does reference that there is plenty of research that shows that employee engagement is a probable driver of business performance, but he does raise concerns about causality and correlation.

So back to original question...what is the "So What? Factor" of being on the list? Now enter Professor Alex Edmans, a finance professor at Wharton Business School, and his scholarly article titled "Doe the Stock Market Fully Value Intangibles? Employee Satisfaction and Equity Prices." The abstract gives the big picture of the paper and why you should read it...

"This paper analyzes the relationship between employee satisfaction and long-run stock returns. A value-weighted portfolio of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in America earned an annual four-factor alpha of 3.5% from 1984-2009, and 2.1% above industry benchmarks. The results are robust to controls for firm characteristics, different weighting methodologies and the removal of outliers. Best Companies also exhibited significantly more positive earnings surprises and announcement returns. These findings have three main implications. First, consistent with human capital-centered theories of the firm, employee satisfaction is positively correlated with shareholder returns and need not represent managerial slack. Second, the stock market does not fully value intangibles, even when independently verified by a highly public survey on large firms." (Yes it says three implications...I didn't find the third relevant to this thought piece though...)

The nature of human capital capabilities on firm performance and stock price is historically difficult to quantify as a tangible aspect of stock price. For this reason, intangibles are historically not considered. But in Professor's Edmans' research between stock price and inclusion on the 100 Best Place to Work For...there is reason to want to be included on that list. Proactively seeking to apply and obtain recognition by placement on the list is significant from the stock price valuation and opportunity to quantify intangible areas like employee satisfaction, but it also leads to enhanced attraction and commitment of talent. Edmans admits that while there is a correlation between employee satisfaction and stock price, he cannot make strong claims of causality because of the number of variables involved (So Paul Hebert's warnings are valid here as well).

While there has been and continues to be an interest in measuring intangibles like human capital capabilities and their impact on organizational performance...it continues to be difficult, but also a necessity. As Arie de Geus stated:"The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage."

If you agree with de Geus, then our ability to create organizations that are learning organizations, engaged, and great places to work - and to be able to measure their impact - is critical. In a recent blog post on my DNA of Human Capital blog, I discussed the concept of measurable leadership capability on Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). If you are going to invest in a company wouldn't you want to know what the intangibles of the human capital are just like the tangibles of the financials?

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn. Twitter: @JKeithDunbar | Blog: DNA of Human Capital | LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar

Me and My Shadow

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:28:00 GMT

Have you ever had the nagging feeling you were being followed? It might be true. Job shadowing - where a student or a prospective or current employee "shadows" an existing worker to observe how a job is done - is increasingly popular thanks to the recession-driven focus on squeezing the maximum return from every business dollar invested.

A survey conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) found that only 31 percent of 262 business leaders offered job shadowing for current employees. But another 14 percent declared plans to implement shadowing programs within a year or two. Among respondents from organizations reporting higher performance in revenue growth, market share, profitability and customer satisfaction, nearly 4 out of 10 say they already have job shadowing programs, and another 10 percent say they'll add programs soon.

Benefits All Around

Offering employees experiential, hands-on learning opportunities is at the core of job shadowing. Shadowing affords an observing or prospective employee the chance to be immersed in the actual job environment, making it possible to see an experienced worker apply the skills and traits needed to accomplish the work. An insightful observer also can glean information about the personal characteristics that contribute to success in the position.

The specific benefits of work shadowing vary by situation. Shadowing already is a staple of the educational system's outreach efforts, providing students with opportunities to see what the work world, its industries and its occupations are all about. Students who shadow employees also get an idea of the expectations employers place on their workers and can sample corporate culture. When they open their doors to student shadowers, businesses aspiring to attract future workers find that job shadowing programs help them make inroads into educational institutions and provide opportunities to foster vocational interest and relationships with tomorrow's workforce. Technology company Cisco Systems reaches out to students with shadowing opportunities through its Networking Academy educational initiative, which emphasizes preparation for careers in information communications technology. Over time, such relationships can help employers address anticipated talent shortages, especially in hard-to-fill positions.

Pre-hire shadowing arrangements can give job candidates a clearer idea of the realities of positions for which they've applied, while also demonstrating how an organization follows through on its employee value proposition. Employers can use the shadowing option to support their selection process, boosting the likelihood that a candidate will understand and match not only the job, but also the organizational culture. Some 75 percent of respondents from the i4cp survey found that providing a better understanding of the organization is the top benefit associated with job shadowing.

Richard L. Curry Jr., executive director of staff development emergency operations for the Indiana Department of Correction, said the pre-hire component of the job shadowing program he oversees helps provide potential employees of the state's department of correction with a clearer understanding of job expectations and working conditions.

"We have something of a hard product to sell when it comes to recruiting," Curry explained. "Showing candidates what the job's about beforehand helps us make sure that we're not only recruiting good people, but also retaining them." Curry said pre-employment job shadowing is now mandatory for all new department of correction hires.

Organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals advocate beginning the shadowing experience as part of new-hire orientation to help engage new employees early in their tenure while providing an introduction to job duties and workplace routines. Other potential learning benefits for the new employee include exposure to the tools required for the job and their proper use, introduction to the technologies used in job execution, and opportunities to establish relationships and network with the shadowed employee and his or her work team, manager and other colleagues.

Some employers prefer to orient new employees before involving them in job shadowing to build on the new employee's existing knowledge of the company. Post-orientation job shadowing can reinforce engagement, strengthen on-boarding and training processes and shorten new hires' time to full productivity. Pamela Genske, human resources director for Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island (BCBSRI), said her firm's employees learn about job shadowing opportunities during orientation and can request a shadowing assignment any time after they've joined the company. "People remember what happens in situations they've been placed in much more effectively than they recall a theory they've been taught in a classroom," Genske said.

Job shadowing programs can benefit a range of employees and potential employees. According to the i4cp survey, half of the respondents who said they had job shadowing programs confirm that all employees are allowed to shadow others. A third of respondents say they limit shadowing to high-potential employees. Others target such groups as managers and management trainees, professional employees, women and minorities.

For existing employees, job shadowing serves a number of functions. Skill development is a benefit cited by nearly three-quarters of the respondents to i4cp's job shadowing survey. The research also found almost two-thirds of participants anticipate that job shadowing will facilitate their succession planning efforts. Improvement to internal communication is another expected benefit.

Curry said his agency's job shadowing component for existing employees gives "qualified employees an opportunity to expand their professional development and prepare for promotional opportunities." Companies also cite the value of job shadowing as a tool to promote knowledge retention. In written comments in the i4cp survey, respondents said that job shadowing "allows a better quality of knowledge retention than other processes," and it "builds company knowledge and awareness."

Employees who provide their peers with shadowing opportunities stand to gain personally and professionally from the experience as well. Setting an example for a shadowing colleague requires forethought and a thorough understanding of the work to be demonstrated. Ann Stewart, deputy commander for Navy Personnel Command, established a job shadowing program in the Tennessee-based facility that acts as personnel headquarters for the U.S. Navy's 330,000-plus workforce. She said hosting a shadowing employee "is an opportunity to get 360-degree feedback for your own job … a different perspective. Any time you have someone from outside your area look in and have an open exchange about that, it's helpful."

Further, Stewart said job shadowing is "easy to set up. Other than the time of the people participating, it hasn't cost us anything. Even if we can't always provide upward mobility, job shadowing gives us a way of recognizing that we have a lot of opportunities within our organization. It's a great way to enable employees to spend some time in other people's shoes so they can understand the challenges and the stresses their colleagues face."

How Does Job Shadowing Work?

The extent and focus of job shadowing vary from one organization to the next, but there are some common considerations to explore before implementing a program.

The i4cp survey respondents produced a list of 17 activities needed to develop job shadowing programs. Some 56 percent of participants with shadowing programs in their organizations said they held internal discussions about implementing shadowing. Other startup strategies include seeking feedback from workers who were shadowed, creating guidelines for a job shadowing program and its processes, communicating information about the program to relevant managers and others, and piloting job shadowing to a specified group within the organization.

Responsibility for job shadowing programs often falls to individual business units, human resources or corporate training and development functions. More than half of the respondents to the job shadowing survey told i4cp their firms included shadowing as part of their mentoring programs. Fernán Cepero, vice president of human resources at the YMCA of Greater Rochester in New York, distinguishes between the two. "We have a mentoring program as well as job shadowing," he said. "Mentoring is more informal, working on an as-needed basis for the employee. Job shadowing is very specific, with the participant focused on developing knowledge and expertise in a particular role."

The length of time in which employees engage in job shadowing varies among organizations. Thirty-four percent of i4cp's survey respondents said shadowing lasted one to two days, while 31 percent said it continued for four or more weeks. Duration depends on the purpose and complexity of the shadowing assignment.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island's executive job shadowing program has been in place for more than four years. Any employee nominated by his or her manager and approved by the division vice president may ask to shadow a company executive for a day.

According to Genske, the CEO and about a dozen top executives are enthusiastic about hosting shadowing employees. The workers gain valuable insight into the expectations and challenges senior leaders face. "[Afterward,] we ask the shadowers to put together presentations of what they learned to share with their department colleagues. Since everyone can't shadow our small group of top executives, the presentation helps to further spread the benefits of shadowing," she explained. Thanks to the high visibility executives give the program, Genske said job shadowing quickly became part of the culture at BCBSRI, requiring little promotion and resulting in a waiting list for participants.

Cepero said that at the YMCA of Greater Rochester, job shadowing serves two purposes: to support both retention and development goals. "We go to great lengths to find great talent, and we certainly want them to stay," he said. "Job shadowing helps new hires acclimate to their jobs and learn the culture of the organization."

For existing employees, Cepero said shadowing "helps them develop professionally and begin to open some doors and insights into their careers." Workers self-identify for the program through discussions with their direct managers. Upon the manager's approval, "a match is made with one of our leaders who is recognized as a subject-matter expert in the role to which the employee aspires," he said.

Cepero said the YMCA's program goes beyond simple observation and involves periodic shadowing over a three- to six-month time frame. "The participant observes, but also has some hands-on work on projects they co-lead or co-facilitate with the person they're shadowing. This adds an experiential element to the shadowing." More than 250 employees have shadowed colleagues during the program's seven-plus years of operation. Cepero said the program's success has contributed to the YMCA's single-digit turnover rate.

Ensure Job Shadowing Impact

As with any organizational program, business leaders will expect job shadowing to produce a significant return on investment. Yet the i4cp research found that 86 percent of respondents report that their organizations don't measure the monetary value of their shadowing programs. Feedback from program participants and their managers are two mechanisms companies can use to gauge success, though more formal measures were cited when i4cp asked about metrics that reflect the value of job shadowing.

Turnover rate among job shadowing participants is the top metric organizations use to assess their program's value, according to respondents. Assessments made before and after shadowing constituted the second choice among metrics, with accomplishment of specific work goals ranking third. Participants' performance levels also serve as a gauge of program value, along with the levels of satisfaction expressed by both shadowed and shadowing employees.

Organizational leaders who have experience with their own job shadowing programs are often enthusiastic proponents of the low-cost training and development method. The YMCA's Cepero said, "Look at job shadowing as a component in your whole leadership development portfolio, and don't confuse it with mentoring by trying to have mentors also serve as shadowees." Curry echoes Cepero's view. He said the Indiana Department of Correction views its pre-hire job shadowing as "one of many tools in our selection process."

Job shadowing programs offer organizations an affordable means to gain a range of development, selection, engagement and retention benefits. In today's recession-scarred business world, lean organizations are likely to drive greater use of this versatile learning approach in the years ahead.

This article was originally published in the September 2010 edition of Talent Management magazine.

Effectively Leverage Diversity Results

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:42:00 GMT

How strong is the correlation between diversity practices and organizational performance? This has been the holy grail for diversity professionals — the definitive business case demonstrating that more diverse organizations are more successful. While there has been considerable theory developed and anecdotal evidence published, many in business remain unconvinced.

Rather than trying to prove the diversity hypothesis, the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) approached the issue differently in its 2009 "Global Diversity Practices Study." With the guidance of corporate members and based on interviews with diversity executives, i4cp designed a survey to examine diversity practices with independent variables, such as organization performance, effective diversity practices and whether or not an organization has a chief diversity officer (CDO) or other diversity leader in place, and link these variables to talent management practices. The survey was neither designed to benchmark senior level representation, corporate spending or other quantifiable diversity results, nor to award a designation or other organizational accolade.

Effective Performance

The 32-question survey was fielded in September 2009 to i4cp members and non-members. Roughly 250 organizations responded fully. Thirty percent of respondents were from large organizations with 10,000 or more employees. Forty-six percent were global or multinational organizations.

The survey included four self-reported questions to identify high-performance organizations. These questions ask how the organizations are faring in regards to revenue, market share, profitability and customer satisfaction as compared to five years ago. Typically only organizations that are in the top quartile in all four dimensions are identified as high market performers. Thirty percent of respondents were identified as high-performing organizations.

Respondents were also asked, "How effective is your organization in leveraging diversity strategies and initiatives to meet business goals?" Twenty-five percent of respondents reported their organization as highly or very highly effective.

Seventeen percent of respondents had both high performance results and highly effective diversity practices. These 35 organizations were of greatest interest to the research team.

Defining Diversity

Often discussions of diversity can be stymied by a lack of a clear definition of diversity itself. For this reason, in the i4cp survey, respondents were asked, "What groups are included in your company's definition of diversity?" Fourteen identity groups ranging from race, gender, knowledge and experience to appearance were provided in a "check all that apply" format. In addition, there were "all of the above" and "we do not have a definition" options.

Not surprisingly, race and gender were universal for organizations that had a definition of diversity. Seventeen percent of respondents had no diversity definition. For high-performing organizations, 12 percent did not have a definition. All highly effective organizations had some definition of diversity, with 35 percent selecting the broad "all of the above" definition. Organizations with a CDO nearly always have some definition of diversity — only 2 percent did not have a definition. Most organizations that embed diversity in talent management also had some definition of diversity — only 3 percent did not have a definition, and 25 percent had a broad, comprehensive "all of the above" definition.

Surprisingly, more than 50 percent of all respondents included both sexual orientation and religion — at times controversial topics — in their diversity definition.

From this broad range of data, one can extrapolate one conclusion: Organizations need a definition of diversity to effectively leverage their diversity efforts, but how diversity is defined does not influence effectiveness.

Benchmarking the Business Case for Diversity

The most enlightening findings of the survey came from the question, "What is your organization's primary business case for diversity?" This required respondents to make a choice rather than select all that apply. The business-case choices were a need for compliance, a need for talent, diversity representing the right thing to do and diversity representing a key business strategy. Overall, 58 percent of respondents identified diversity representing a key business strategy as the primary business case for it. Fifteen percent selected diversity representing the right thing to do, 12 percent identified a need for talent, and 10 percent identified a need for compliance.

The research team looked at these results and how success in diversity initiatives was measured and arrived at some unique findings. The measurement of diversity success is dependent on the business case. The strongest correlations for many of the diversity practices were business case and not organizational size or industry. High-performing and highly effective organizations anchor their diversity efforts in a business strategy. For benchmarking purposes, organizations should look to other organizations with a similar business case rather than organization size or industry.

A Lack of Leadership Accountability

When conducting interviews, the research team heard frustration from many CDOs on the lack of leadership accountability for diversity success. Those organizations that have leadership accountability measures are in the minority. Fifty-seven percent of all respondents acknowledged that their leaders were not held accountable for diversity success. High-performing organizations only saw this number drop to 50 percent. But only 13 percent of highly effective organizations and 17 percent of both high-performance and highly effective organizations reported that their leaders were not held accountable.

The survey found the most popular accountability mechanism is annual CEO diversity reviews. When looking at the business case for diversity, 54 percent of compliance-driven organizations have no leadership accountability. Thirty-one percent of these respondents identified CEO diversity reviews and none identified board of director reviews. For organizations driven by diversity representing the right thing to do, only 37 percent acknowledged a lack of leadership accountability. Forty-two percent utilized CEO diversity reviews and 11 percent board of director reviews.

Surprisingly, respondents identifying diversity as a key business strategy reported that 32 percent do not have leadership accountability in place. Thirty-seven percent of this cohort uses CEO diversity reviews, less than organizations driven by diversity representing the right thing to do, but the board of director review is used twice as often, reported at 22 percent by organizations that see diversity as a business strategy.

The results for organizations that cite a need for talent as the primary business driver for diversity were radically different when examining accountability. First, only 29 percent reported no accountability measures for leadership. This is 28 percentage points lower than the average. CEO reviews were only used by 29 percent of these respondents, but board of director reviews were also reported by 29 percent. The hypothesis is that organizations with a diversity agenda driven by a need for talent have board-level interest and support but also more mechanisms to hold leaders accountable.

This article was originally published in the September 2010 edition of Diversity Executive magazine.