Guest Article: One-Faced Leader by Jay Kuhns, SPHR

I hear a hell of a lot of noise in the world of leadership. Fancy titles, and years of doing the same thing over and over without changing with the times...er...I mean, lots of experience...do not equate with one of the easiest ways to be effective.

Be real! 

Be you!

Stop trying to sound like something you're not!

Jargon

Regardless of the terms in the glossary of your certification credentials handbook of choice, I beg you to only use them when you're taking your favorite certification exam.

No one else cares about them, and quite honestly, no one should. 

"Jargon, in any field, becomes the cover that hides rampant incompetence of leaders everywhere. 

Leadership is not about words, 

it is about connecting with the people 

in your organization and making 

a difference for them, and your company."

- Jay Kuhns

Not About You

Time and again we hear the pundits espouse the power of listening, connecting, engaging, and working closely with our teams. 

Yet the reality is far too often a constant reminder from leadership that they are the "smart ones" and the rest of the team should be grateful that they are in place to save the day.

Pass me my barf bag.

These are the same leaders who are mocked behind their backs for being so embarrassingly out of touch with their own corporate cultures that the team wonders what they actually do all day.

How About You

There should only be one face that leaders wear. It should not be covered in fancy titles, corporate jargon or illusions of power shown only in the workplace. Instead, it should be one that is authentic, consistent, and unafraid to be seen where it matters most...

...on the front line.

I'd love to hear from you.

No Excuses.

pic

Article source:Jay Kuhns, SPHR - One-Faced Leader»

Check out more of Jay Kuhns' work at No Excuses HR

Guest Article: Compensation Transparency: Advice for Getting the Balance Just Right by Ben

When we think about tools like Expedia and Yelp, we realize the value of transparency in the marketplace. The
underlying issue is information asymmetry – when one party has more information than the other, that party
has additional leverage in a discussion or negotiation. Leveling the playing field between two parties in an
exchange helps both to feel like they got a fair deal, which is essential in an employment situation. This
specifically applies to compensation as well. There is value in openness, and companies that find the right
balance can reap the benefits of pay transparency

Research Supports an Open Approach: Research points out that companies where employees understand the pay philosophy are more likely to see engagement from employees. A sense of trust and openness at work can create bottom-line business results. On the other end of the spectrum, pay secrecy has proven to limit business impact. This combination of factors clearly makes the case that businesses need to seek transparency at some level.

Trends in Transparency: A wide variety of trends have contributed to this increased demand for compensation transparency. From the deep insights offered by tools like Charity Navigator (and other online transparency sites) to the media sharing stories of corporate corruption and scandal, many drivers have created an environment that is ripe for additional openness.

Delivering a High-Quality Employee Experience: The good news is that any organization can improve pay transparency. Using tools like transparency audits and frameworks, companies can deliver a culturally-appropriate level of openness that improves the employee experience. These methods help organizations to make decisions (both big and small) in search of the right balance of transparency.

The Business Case for Transparency

Several years ago, Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist and professor at Duke University, performed an analysis of country-specific organ donation rates. His findings showed that countries like Austria and Poland had higher than 99 percent donation rates, but countries like Denmark had dismal rates in the single digits. He wanted to find out what made each group different, because Denmark is very similar to its neighbors in terms of culture, religion, and other socioeconomic factors.

It turned out that the key influencer was not an intrinsic one at all. Each country’s Department of Motor Vehicles actually used a different method for enrolling someone in organ donation. For Austria and Poland, the enrollment form’s default was to participate in the program. For countries like Denmark, the enrollment form required them to opt into the program. That small difference led to significant impacts on organ donation and availability, and it offers a compelling lesson on how our default reactions can shape outcomes.

The lesson here is, given the choice, we should default to transparency. For some business leaders, it is reflexive to protect information, keeping it secret unless they have a good reason to share. While working as an HR leader, I performed plenty of coaching with my executive team focused on the concepts of pay transparency and business transparency in general. I always told them their default should be to share openly unless there are specific reasons not to. The benefits of this approach include greater awareness and engagement in the employee population.

If you’re interested in reading and learning more about compensation transparency, be sure to check out our free eBook on the topic underwritten by the great team at Salary.com, where this content was pulled from. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic!

Article source:Ben - Compensation Transparency: Advice for Getting the Balance Just Right»

Check out more of Ben Uebanks' work at Upstart HR

Guest Article: Seek on the PR offensive: Move on, there's nothing to see here by Ross Clennett

It’s been a fascinating past couple of months in the story of Seek, via their fully or partially owned brands Onploy, Sidekicker and JoraLocal, competing against the recruitment agency segment of Seek’s own customer base. It’s clear Seek have been mindful of the less-than-helpful publicity as a handful of my clients advised me that their Seek Account Manager proactively mentioned my blog
Article source:Ross Clennett - Seek on the PR offensive: Move on, there's nothing to see here»

Check out more of Ross Clennett's work at hisblog

Guest Article: Vulnerability - A New Leadership Competency by Jay Kuhns, SPHR

I've been working for a long time. Well, actually, for a really long time, and most of that has been in leadership. Some of the "virtues" of leadership I learned early on were to never show weakness or be indecisive, because...

weakness = career over
indecisive = zero respect

I'm guessing that mindset is not unique to the healthcare industry.

However, I would suggest there is a different competency out there that is a far cry from the commonplace failings of weakness and the inability to make a decision.

Vulnerability.
- "open to criticism"

New Leaders
Once upon a time I was a new leader eager to climb the corporate health system ladder. I wanted to try new approaches, use new technologies, and take risks. For some reason I've always been enamored with risk!

...which doesn't make me sound like an HR guy...but whatever...

What I often ran into though was a large group of old-school leaders: bright, successful people who had no interest in doing anything differently, ever.

I quickly grew frustrated with what turned out to be my perception of these folks...what they considered their "strengths" I considered to be an "out of touch" view. What they thought of as "steady and consistent" I soon labeled as "stale."

Fast forward to today...am I'm asking myself if the young leaders in the world of work look at you and me that way?

Are we out of touch and stale?

New Expectations
I'm convinced now more than ever that not only is effective leadership about staying current with industry trends, technology, and employee expectations as they shift and modulate over time. But also to show something else...

...our vulnerable side.

How many of us equate being vulnerable with weakness? 
How many of us see a direct link between loss of credibility and being vulnerable?
How many of us are obsessed with maintaining our perceived power as leaders?

Consider the impact of being real and showing our human side to the employees in our organizations. Do you think they will connect with us more? Might they see beyond our fancy job title and lofty position on the maze of boxes on the org chart?

Maybe, just maybe, they will believe in us and want to stay and be part of something special.

How About You
How do you show your human side at work? Perhaps embracing vulnerability, and leveraging it as a true leadership competency is the missing piece in your approach.

I'd love to hear from you.

No Excuses.

pic

Article source:Jay Kuhns, SPHR - Vulnerability - A New Leadership Competency»

Check out more of Jay Kuhns' work at No Excuses HR

Guest Article: Performance Management, Culture, and Business Results [New Research] by Ben

This summer at Lighthouse we’ve been working our way through a number of research studies, but to be honest one of the ones I’ve been incredibly pumped about is focused on performance management. It’s probably because I get a sense of the discontent around this practice regardless of where I go and who I speak with. It’s incredibly hated at so many companies by HR, management, and the employees.

But there are also companies that are using it as a kind of secret weapon. In the research (the full report will be published in September) I am seeing some very interesting points on how companies plan to approach the practice of performance management, and it’s encouraging me to focus on it not just as managing or reviewing past performance, but enabling great future performance.

Top 10 Research Highlights

1. We keep hearing it in the news–performance management is shifting/changing/dying. It’s certainly not staying the same. Approximately 60% of employers have made changes (including both minor adjustments and major shifts) to their performance process in the last 24 months. Another 25% are planning to in the near future.
2. Despite the common discussion, annual goals still rank as the number one way employers manage performance. This is followed by recognition, coaching, and leveraging strengths.
3. While performance feels like a drag for many employees (anecdotally :-)), the number one reason employers still practice it is to improve individual performance for workers.
4. Which seems kind of said, because just 4% of employers say that their approach is highly effective and enables greater employee performance.
5. Nearly one in five companies say that their performance management technology is clunky and difficult to use, which hinders progress in performance management, measurement, and improvement.
6. At the same time, two-thirds of companies say that their approach improves engagement levels for their workforce. This is very much split by the kind of culture a company has (more on this below).
7. High-performing companies are 58% less likely to say their approach to performance management is ineffective.
8. High-performing companies are 20% more likely to say their performance management philosophy improves engagement rather than diminishing it.
9. Astonishingly, companies with a competitive or controlling culture were more than three times as likely to say their approach to performance management failed to deliver the results and may actually impede employee performance and engagement.
10. The performance practice spectrum. We’re analyzing the data through the lens of performance management activities on a spectrum. On one end are the old-fashioned, unpleasant activities like forced ranking and annual reviews. On the other end are more positive, engaging practices such as development coaching, peer feedback, and more.

    What we see in the preliminary results is that companies with a more collaborative culture are more likely to practice on the positive end of the spectrum while firms with more controlling cultures are more likely to fall on the negative end. More to come on this as we explore the data!

These highlights, while intriguing, are fairly high level. Look for additional insights in our upcoming white paper and webinar (to be announced) that focus more deeply on culture, what high-performing companies do differently, and other key insights from the research!

Article source:Ben - Performance Management, Culture, and Business Results [New Research]»

Check out more of Ben Uebanks' work at Upstart HR

Guest Article: Reinventing Recruiting: An Interview with Terry Terhark of randrr [Podcast] by Ben

Tried to find a new job lately? It’s easy to feel like a rat in a wheel, running faster and faster yet getting nowhere. Despite this being a candidate’s market, it’s easy to feel like you are never going to get ahead of the game.

In today’s conversation (click here to listen), Ben Eubanks interviews Terry Terhark, founder and CEO of randrr. randrr is a recruiting technology firm that is focused on meeting the needs of candidates and individuals by providing highly targeted job opportunities and career insights.

During the conversation, Ben and Terry discuss what’s wrong with recruiting today and how to meet the needs of today’s job seekers. In addition, Terry talks about the issues he sees that bleed across generational and demographic lines, hampering each company from being both efficient and effective with their recruiting efforts. Ben also points to some recent data from Lighthouse Research that focuses on talent acquisition priorities for 2017 and why they matter within the context of the conversation.

Here’s a brief snippet of the conversation:

Ben: So, would you say then that we’re in a candidate’s market?

Terry: I definitely think recruiters understand that today. And it’s not just in high pressure fields like we’ve seen traditionally such as nursing, software, etc. Now it’s crept into skilled trades, sales, and other areas.

There’s tremendous pressure. Recruiters understand that it’s a candidate’s market, but from a company perspective they don’t necessarily realize that opinions have changed. Even today some of the statistics that we have gathered show that the process for job search or recruiting is disappointing and frustrating. Nearly three in four polled individuals said their online job search is frustrating. Company behavior and recruiter behavior has to change to fit that.

Ben: This definitely reminds us of the recent case study with Virgin Media. The company was losing tons of revenue because it treated its “silver medalists,” or candidates it didn’t select, so poorly. Those individuals wouldn’t even shop at the company after that treatment, but the company turned it around and really points to that as a huge revenue opportunity today.

Terry: That’s the issue. We see that companies are getting an average of 150 resumes per posting. That’s virtually impossible to qualitatively sift through, yet many technologies people use encourage more applications/submittals both for candidates and for employers, which compounds the problem…

Click here to listen to the episode and find out what the answer is to this and other problems facing companies today.

To find out more about randrr, be sure to check out http://randrr.com

Thanks everyone, as always, for checking out We’re Only Human. If you’d like to hear previous episodes just check out our archive at http://ift.tt/2jqDL7I

Article source:Ben - Reinventing Recruiting: An Interview with Terry Terhark of randrr [Podcast]»

Check out more of Ben Uebanks' work at Upstart HR

Guest Article: Generation 'Leadership-Do-Your-Job' by Jay Kuhns, SPHR

"Parents [and leaders] often talk about the younger generation as if they didn't have anything to do with it."
- Haim Ginott

The People
I'm not a big fan of focusing exclusively on one generation or another when I think about job satisfaction, leadership behavior, or strategic workforce planning. However, there are some realities to the world we live in that can not be ignored.

For example, there are a heck of a lot of people turning sixty-five every day (as in, 10,000!) We affectionately call these folks baby-boomers and seem to hold them in high regard. 

Deserved for some, but not for all.


We also have another group of employees that are making a huge impact in our hiring, leadership development, and retention activities.


There are a heck of a lot of them turning twenty-something every day. We not-so-affectionately call these folks millennials.

This negative stereotype speaks volumes about the insecurities of the leaders uttering them.

The Research
Glassdoor has published an interesting report on recruiting and retention statistics for 2017 that is loaded with neat little facts, 

What I found most impactful includes:

- we need to respect our employees
- we need to focus on creating an amazing place to work to retain our employees
- we need to be progressive, competitive, and thoughtful on pay, benefits and culture

Do Your Job
So, what does all of this *new* insight tell us? It's quite simple actually.

1. Leaders are focused far too much on themselves.
2. Leaders spend too much time labeling others.
3. Leaders are threatened about their positions so anything new or different is bad.
4. Leaders lose good people because they don't practice the values that they preach.

You aren't that special..but your team members are. Stop talking, start showing them how much they matter to your company.

How About You
I know every leader isn't stumbling around like a management dinosaur. But if the Glassdoor report tells us anything, it's that there plenty of those dinosaurs left alive who are still tearing down their organizations from the inside out.

Don't be a dinosaur.

I'd love to hear from you.

No Excuses.

pic
Article source:Jay Kuhns, SPHR - Generation 'Leadership-Do-Your-Job'»

Check out more of Jay Kuhns' work at No Excuses HR

Guest Article: The Secret to Alienating Your Employees Over Time by Ben

I recently learned a great strategy that I can’t wait to share with you.

Employee: Hey Bob. I know you are busy. I just have a few quick questions. A few of us came up with this really great idea for the party.

HR: No.

Employee: Um, well, okay. So, Jim needs me to help him with this thing…

HR: No.

Employee: All right, then, just one more question…

HR: No.

Employee: Come on, you didn’t even give me a chance!

HR: (Smiles gleefully)

———

Let me tell you the secret to human resources: always say no. Whatever people want, just flat out turn them down. The great thing is that pretty soon, you can train them to stop asking for anything and settle for whatever you want to leave them with. They’ll stop bothering you and just get to work.

Clever, huh? Now you, too, can implement this kind of approach to human resources and make your stand for what you believe in.

News flash: if this sounds even remotely appealing to you, you suck and need to get out of HR.

This post was inspired by a recent conversation with an HR leader that was trying to help an employee with a major insurance crisis to cover his critically ill child. The response from one of her peers in HR? “It’s not our job to take care of them.” Ugh. Yes, we’re business leaders, but we’re also people too, darn it. Take care of your people and they’ll take care of you. Disregard, dismiss, or demean them and you will lose the best chance you have at being competitive in the marketplace.

Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?

Article source:Ben - The Secret to Alienating Your Employees Over Time»

Check out more of Ben Uebanks' work at Upstart HR

Guest Article: Your Uber Drivers are Cheating Because They Don’t Want an Algorithm for a Manager by Ben

If you missed the news this last week, a pair of researchers have published a report showing that Uber drivers are gaming the system in order to earn more money, reduce pickups, and fight back against what they see as a tyrannical algorithm. Here’s a blurb from PBS:

As University of Warwick researchers Mareike Möhlmann and Ola Henfridsson and Lior Zalmanson of New York University say in their best academese: “We identify a series of mechanisms that drivers use to regain their autonomy when faced with the power asymmetry imposed by algorithmic management, including guessing, resisting, switching and gaming the Uber system.”

Algorithmic management is, of course, the software Uber uses to control its drivers. As Mareike Möhlmann puts it: “Uber uses software algorithms for oversight, governance and to control drivers, who are tracked and their performance constantly evaluated.”

A joint statement from the authors elaborated: “Under constant surveillance through their phones and customer reviews, drivers’ behavior is ranked automatically and any anomalies reported for further review, with automatic bans for not obeying orders or low grades. Drivers receive different commission rates and bonus targets, being left in the dark as to how it is all calculated. Plus drivers believe they are not given rides when they near reaching a bonus.

Small wonder then that, according to Lior Zalmanson, “The drivers have the feeling of working for a system rather than a company, and have little, if any interaction with an actual Uber employee.”

So what are the drivers doing in response? Gaming the system by tricking the algorithm.

The researchers report that drivers organize mass “switch-offs.” The dearth of drivers in a given area then triggers the surge pricing mechanism.

The authors conclude by summarizing their findings, pretty much as formally as they began: “We found that [the drivers] actively tried to regain some of their lost control and sense of autonomy. We reported four observed driver behaviors. We found that drivers tried to guess and make sense of the system’s intentions. They utilized forums such as UberPeople to share these stories and gain social support. In many cases, these stories were echoed by other drivers, creating an urge to act. This resulted in a range of practices to resist the system, by switching to alternative systems and even gaming the system to their advantage.”

While the rest of us aren’t switching out our managers for an algorithm any time soon, it’s important to note some of the key statements in this piece that relate to all of us as employers.

The drivers have the feeling of working for a system rather than a company, and have little, if any interaction with an actual Uber employee. People want to interact with people. That’s not Uber’s business model, but we’re seeing now yet another strain on the company based on a fundamental fact that humans are social creatures.

When you work for a nameless, faceless system (or algorithm), it becomes much easier to cheat the system and fight back. It’s different if you’re having weekly conversations with real people who care about you and your success. Remember this idea when you’re trying to find out how to connect your remote employees.

We found that [the drivers] actively tried to regain some of their lost control and sense of autonomy. Is it any surprise that workers would like some sense of control or autonomy in their work? It’s a foundational management and leadership premise to provide autonomy to workers, yet Uber tries to treat its drivers like nothing more than the robots that power its algorithm and platform.

Do we really have to have a newsflash that reminds this company that people are, um, people? They have hopes. Dreams. Desires. And they will find a way to get them if they feel like they are not appreciated or supported appropriately.

Drivers receive different commission rates and bonus targets, being left in the dark as to how it is all calculated. Plus drivers believe they are not given rides when they near reaching a bonus. One of the first lessons you learn in HR? Don’t screw with someone’s pay. Whatever you do, be transparent and don’t make people guess about how their compensation works, or you run the risk of creating a black hole of negativity and gossip that will swallow the company whole.

In a previous job a big part of my compensation was a quarterly bonus that my family depended on. It never failed that each and every quarter the deadline for payment would pass, I would raise the question, and eventually it would get paid. But why make me or any other employee have to go through those hoops for that? It makes me wonder if I would have ever been paid ANY of it if I hadn’t brought it to their attention. When it comes to how pay is structured, be clear about the expectations, be transparent about the process, and for goodness’ sake pay people when you say you will.

Okay, that’s enough from me. What are your thoughts on this specific issue or these general issues? Am I on point? Off the mark? 

Article source:Ben - Your Uber Drivers are Cheating Because They Don’t Want an Algorithm for a Manager»

Check out more of Ben Uebanks' work at Upstart HR

Guest Article: Give Me Your Soul by Jay Kuhns, SPHR

Loyal - "unswerving in allegiance"

Then
There was a time when employees were thankful to have a good job, working for a good company, one that would 'take care' of them for the duration of their career. It seems to me however, there was an imbalance between the organization and the employees who worked hard for those companies to grow and prosper.

It's as if the popular mindset of employers as all-powerful beings that controlled one's entire future was real. Did those loyal employees actually feel that way; or, was it some sort of cultural power play that tricked employees into believing they had to feel loyal or some grave outcome would surely befall them?

While I have tremendous respect for those individuals who feel so deeply connected to the mission of their organizations that they couldn't imagine leaving, that is not what I see playing out in the contemporary world of work.

Now
I think we've had our view of the employer / employee relationship completely backwards for years. 

Yes, bold leadership is absolutely essential if an organization is going to be successful. 

However, the burden on leadership is not only to be provide effective decision-making, but also to be equally as focused on their relationship with the people on the team.

When leadership believes they are always the smartest people in the room, that organization has begun a death spiral. 

Arrogance never plays well.

Never.
Ever.
Ever.

How About You
When we ask our employees to give us their souls, we sure as hell better be prepared to give them everything we have in return. That does not mean imparting our wisdom as if it is some sort of divine message.

Rather, it is a mandate that we stay connected, listen, respect, support and by all means ensure that our team feels valued. Absent that, we will be just another organization that had great potential, but the leadership team screwed it up.

I'd love to hear from you.

No Excuses.

pic
Article source:Jay Kuhns, SPHR - Give Me Your Soul»

Check out more of Jay Kuhns' work at No Excuses HR

Guest Article: Lack of Curiosity is Killing Your Career by Melissa Fairman

And Your Organization No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don’t ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives. – Neil deGrasse Tyson People are terrified to ask questions. Over time that fear of asking questions, the inability to articulate and challenge in a safe environment, will kill an organization. It Will Kill […]
Article source:Melissa Fairman - Lack of Curiosity is Killing Your Career»

Check out more of Melissa Fairman's work at HR Remix

Guest Article: Interview with 2017 RCSA Professional Recruiter of the Year: Erin Devlin of people2people by Ross Clennett

At the recent RCSA Winter Ball we had the unprecedented situation of three finalists for the 2017 RCSA Professional Recruiter of the Year being employed at one company. I am fortunate to to know the individual merits of each of those finalists (Catherine Kennedy, Sam Palmer and Erin Devlin) and would not have wanted to select a winner, let alone the competition from the other three
Article source:Ross Clennett - Interview with 2017 RCSA Professional Recruiter of the Year: Erin Devlin of people2people»

Check out more of Ross Clennett's work at hisblog

Guest Article: "Who" Is Your Recruitment Strategy by Jay Kuhns, SPHR

I hear lots of discussions that go something like this...

P1  "So, what is your recruitment strategy?"

P2  "What do you mean?"

P1  "You know, are you using LinkedIn more, or spending money on Indeed?"

P2  "Oh, yea, we're looking into that, and definitely use LinkedIn. Yes, we're obviously doing that. So, what are you doing?"

Me  Take me now, Lord.

What
All too often talent acquisition leaders get caught in the trap of narrowly defining their strategies as a series of "whats." Sure, we need a well thought out plan, but what is missed repeatedly is that the organization's employees are the heart of any contemporary approach.

What recruitment video is on our website? (as in only one...fail!)

What digital application process will we use? (and how can we force it to mirror our broken manual process...fail again!)

What steps can we take to get the Marketing Department to pay attention to us? (even though Marketing Departments do not understand employer brand...a fail hat trick!)

Who
TA leaders have a unique opportunity to differentiate themselves from their competition if they use a "who" vs "what" filter as they develop their recruitment strategies. Consider for a moment the pride that you feel in your team, your company, and the difference you make. You have stories to tell! 

Stories are not "what" things...stories are based on people, the "who" making the magic happen each day.

When leaders focus on profiling their employees on videos and blogs, and distributing those stories across a variety of social channels guess what happens?

The competition has a heart attack, and you get the candidates you need!

Simple.
Effective.

...and only requires one thing...

Courage.

How About You
Is it time to have a very different conversation about your strategic plan? I'd love to help. Oh, and don't worry, I have enough courage for the both of us.

I'd love to hear from you.

No Excuses.

pic
Article source:Jay Kuhns, SPHR - "Who" Is Your Recruitment Strategy»

Check out more of Jay Kuhns' work at No Excuses HR