Category: Education

Q&A WITH JOSH BERSIN: THE NO. 1 PROBLEM FACING HR DEPARTMENTS TODAY — AND HOW TO FIX IT

The way many human resources departments are structured and operate needs to change, says Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, Deloitte Consulting LLP a human resources research and advisory firm. As the need for talent grows, the traditional approach to “centers of expertise” with HR generalists has to change, argues Bersin, driving more embedded talent expertise within the business. Bersin suggests that companies have to redefine talent management from “integrated” to a configurable “talent system.”

Why are companies rethinking their approaches to talent management?

We are entering a crisis in retention and engagement. Coming out of the recession skills are in short supply and organizations need to reinvigorate the value proposition and work experience for their employees.  We like to call it “building passion in the workplace” – it goes far beyond the traditional definition of engagement. 
Over the last ten years companies have been focused on “integrated talent management” – bringing the various talent teams together to implement coaching, performance management, development planning and other practices. 
Now, in 2014, we need to take the next step, and build what we call the “corporate talent system” — not software. Rather than think about how to “tweak” or “change” the performance appraisal and compensation process to improve engagement or retention, for example, we now need to shift our thinking to all elements of talent management at the same time.  The whole talent “system” works together, so you really can’t change one process without looking at all the others.
Suppose you want to improve employee engagement and performance in a given business area. First, of course, you have to look at management skills and behaviors. But beyond this, the likely solution may involve a change in performance management, an increase in diversity and inclusion, changing the work environment and work rules, modifying compensation, tweaking the employee development environment, and just about everything else. Rather than look at one talent practice as a solution to a problem, now we need to look at the “system” as a whole.
This takes a consultative approach. In 2014 we have to design HR to think about these problems in a systemic way and then take a systemic approach to solutions. Companies are not only going to need integrated software, but they’re going to need to have teams that work on problems in a consultative way.

Describe a company that solved a problem by taking a jigsaw puzzle approach to HR?

A Midwest electric utilities company is having a hard time recruiting engineers to work in its two nuclear power plants. The head of the nuclear division told HR that he wanted to raise the compensation by 35 percent to attract engineers. 
The HR leader said “not so fast” and created a small consulting team of HR experts that’s basically a SWAT team. After several months of study, the team concluded, “Yes, we’re not getting enough candidates, despite there being people in the market for these jobs. The reason we’re not getting them has nothing to do with compensation — it’s our employment brand. We have no brand value proposition, we’re unknown, and no one thinks we’re a cool company. You can raise the comp all you want, but we’re still not going to get them.” They implemented these recommendations, and sure enough, within six to nine months they developed a strong pipeline of engineers. 

How can a company begin to change its approach to HR?

We have to redesign HR to think about the entire “talent system” as a whole — and put in place senior specialists in the field who can implement and tweak these processes as needed. 
Generally there are three things in the way of this. First, many people in HR lack domain expertise. In one of our most recent surveys, nearly 45 percent of respondents ranked “reskilling HR” as a top priority. Second, HR structure is designed well for integrated consulting. Companies have spent a long time setting up HR generalists that serve the needs of line managers — these people have to become embedded specialists, connected to the center of expertise. Third, we have defined the HR roles based on service delivery, and HR people get paid based on the “customer satisfaction” of their line managers. While this is a good thing, it draws them away from becoming consultants and encourages them to spend time on administration.  We need to shift HR teams into consulting roles and need to train managers how to implement HR practices through self-service wherever possible.
2014 will be a challenging year to hire and retain people. It’s time to rethink about HR and redesign our teams to build a highly engaging workplace, drive development and performance, and attract the most highly skilled candidates.

Q&A WITH TIM SACKETT: IN THE FUTURE, MARKETING WILL DO THE RECRUITING

Marketers as chief company recruiters? Yes, predicts Tim Sackett, president of staffing firm HRU Technical Resources and blogger at The Tim Sackett Project. With new technologies, the way today’s job candidate looks for a potential employer is ever-changing. Same holds true for the way recruiters find appropriate talent. While networking events and personal connections still drive talent acquisition, social tools are becoming more important for recruiters in the early stages. Sackett predicts that as this trend continues, recruiters will eventually become part of a company’s marketing department — branding employment as it does its products.

What is the biggest change in the future of company hiring?

Eventually recruiting and talent acquisition will be taken out of HR departments and it’ll be put with the marketing department. Most companies have really good consumer branding, while employment branding is generally run by one person in HR who is working with the marketing department and the IT department. Instead of HR messing with the career site and job descriptions, marketing should deal with it. HR people see job descriptions as a legal thing, but marketing and sales would make the descriptions fun and attractive—like a story.

How have recruiting tools and technology changed over the past five years?

What you’ve seen is this evolution of the job board 2.0. For years Monster, CareerBuilder and Dice were the go-to for recruiting. Companies turned to a resume database site—whether it’s internal or external—plowed through the data and contacted as many people as possible. Then LinkedIn came into the picture, which started out as a cool networking tool for professionals, and then two years ago became a job board site. LinkedIn is different than Monster and CareerBuilder because it has found a way to get companies to think that it’s okay to have employees on LinkedIn. If my profile is on LinkedIn, I don’t have an HR manager coming down to my office asking if everything’s okay, whereas if my resume was on Monster or CareerBuilder, I was going to have that talk because they were afraid I was going to leave.
A number of job board companies are learning how to aggregate all of the data online. Let’s say you belong to Pinterest and Facebook, but you’re not necessarily looking for a job, you’re still leaving a social exhaust, a path of crumbs and pieces of you all over the web. These new technologies have found ways to take these crumbs and create a profile of who a person is—what they do, where they live. Recruiters might only have a Twitter account, but they can now connect with someone who they may have never found before. That’s the future of recruiting.

Because of all of this data on the Internet, do you think more recruiters are searching for people that aren’t actively looking for jobs?

There are two kinds of recruiters. The majority of people in the corporate recruiting industry follow post-and-pray—they’re the gatherers. Then you have a smaller minority that are the hunters—they go out and find people. Hiring managers want that passive candidate that’s already working and not looking for a job because they think that candidate’s better because they aren’t in the job market. It’s a warped sense of reality.

Looking down the road, how will recruiters change their strategies to seek out those passive candidates?

Recruiters need to leverage their networks—such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter—and their giant network of employees. Most talent acquisition professionals do a terrible job of leveraging their own employees. They put a poster up about employee referral and then they forget about it—and employees forget about it, too.
You can expand your network as a recruiter by making it super simple to leverage your employees’ networks. In an email to all of your employees, you can say, “We need a new accountant,” and in one button, employees can say, “Yes, I want to send this to my network,” and it goes to their LinkedIn or Twitter friends. Then their friends within one button can send it to their friends. This is how viral marketing and recruiting takes place. Those companies that figure out how to leverage networks are going to be the ones that find the better talent faster

Q&A WITH GARY WOODILL: WHY NOBODY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT MOBILE LEARNING IN 5 YEARS

There’s a lot of talk about the future of mobile learning in the workplace. But is it just that — talk? For now, the answer is mostly yes, says Gary Woodill, the CEO of i5 Research, a technology research firm, and author of Mobile Learning Edge. Here, Woodill explains why mobile learning hasn’t taken off, and why Big Data promises to fundamentally reshape employee education.

How are companies using mobile learning?

Mobile learning is at a very early stage. We’re not seeing a lot of companies using it in any systematic way. The types of companies that are most likely to jump in are sales-oriented companies where salespeople are on the road, field services where technicians go out to fix things, and transportation services — such as road, air or train services — where it’s tough to bring people together for training in one location.

Why hasn’t mobile learning taken hold in the workplace yet?

We haven’t really defined the problems that mobile learning can solve. That needs to happen. The most obvious problem mobile learning solves is performance support in the sense that you can get instant information at the moment of need using your mobile device. It’s a shift away from the standardized course-based model where people learned in a classroom and had to pass a test. 
The reason that doesn’t work anymore is because of rapid technological change. We can teach people about a new product, but six months later that product could have disappeared and a new one may have come along, and then you have to retrain again. If you’re able to do this on a continuous basis, that changes the parameter of everything.

How does mobile education change our approach to learning?

At the enterprise level, it’s becoming much more learner-driven where the person who has the mobile device starts to learn when they want to and when they need to. It’s being driven by immediate needs instead of a specific curriculum that’s coming out of the training department.
Another shift that’s important has to do with context. E-learning and classroom learning doesn’t take you into the environment you’re learning about. With mobile, you’re moving around and now you’re in a situation where you have a question, and you can immediately get an answer — and it’s relevant and motivating to do that because it’s something you have to deal with right now.  

Where is technology-based learning headed?

My own view is that mobile learning is a transitional technology. Mobile is only one of many ways that learning is changing. Learning is also becoming social, collaborative, networked, learner-driven, visual. In five years I don’t think we’re going to be talking about mobile learning. There’s a bigger change happening.
The term “ubiquitous computing” refers to the fact that computing facilities will one day be in every object you touch. We’re starting to talk about the “Internet of things,” where objects have an IP address and you can get information from them. Even though most people think mobile is the latest thing, in fact it isn’t — it’s been around since the 1980s.
The technology that’s most recent is Big Data and predictive analytics. Big Data and predictive analytics will take things like millions and millions of records and predict something or tell you a connection between two or more variables. That’s going to be used in the educational realm for what’s called “adaptive teaching,” where a teacher will get information as a student works to know what he needs to do to improve his learning. We can now monitor students individually to tell their moods and responses in order to figure out what the teacher should do next. Adaptive teaching is coming, not only to the classrooms but to enterprises as well.

Q&A WITH JOHN SUMSER: HOW DNA SEQUENCING, BIG DATA WILL CHANGE WHO WE HIRE — AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT HR

Technology can be overwhelming. It can also be enlightening. Take the fact that women earn less than men. That’s true, but the glass ceiling isn’t to blame, says John Sumser, editor-in-chief of HRExaminer Online Magazine and a principal of Two Color Hat, an HR advisory firm. Here, Sumser describes how technology is challenging HR to think differently about common assumptions — and how it will inevitably impact who gets hired and why.

Why do we feel so overwhelmed by technology?

Eric Schmidt [Google’s executive chairman] once said, “Every two days we create as much data as we did from the dawn of civilization to 2003.” People want to make the most of the technology, but can’t make sense of it all. For example, most people download 40 apps for their smartphones, but only use five of them. Plus most people have smartphones that are more powerful than the technology that put the man on the moon.

Technology is becoming more powerful than the human brain. What does this mean for recruiting?

HR has to be able to tell the difference between a person and a machine. If I come to work for you with my iPhone and all the latest business analysis tools, I can use that data at my fingertips. But what about the guy from Harvard with a 4.0 who doesn’t have all those tools? How can you tell in a world where the real advantage is access to information, not educational credentials, who is the more valuable hire? You can’t tell the difference between me and my phone or me and the data that my computer provides me.

What skills will HR employees need to learn to be able to adapt to the data overload?

People in HR should take four or five advanced statistics classes at MIT, which are online for free. With all of the data comes the requirement that you’re able to understand what it means from a statistical perspective. 
I’m sure you’ve heard of the idea that the amount of time people spend at the same job is declining, and we’re moving toward a freelance economy. If you don’t have a college education, statistics show that you’re going to hold your job for about 18 months. That’s 73 percent of the population. The other 25 percent, the college educated, have been staying at their jobs longer and longer for the last 25 years. That’s not a freelance economy — that’s an economy where the middle class has been gutted, where the people who don’t have the ability to process information are being penalized, and where the economy is moving from hard goods production to service production.
Here’s one that hits closer to home. The average woman’s salary is 87 cents for every dollar a man makes. What that doesn’t tell you is that the vast majority of that difference is composed of the jobs that are almost exclusively female professions like teaching and social work, where the wage is lower than the median wage for a man in all jobs that men hold. If you go into any workplace in America, there’s not a statistical difference between what men make and women make. The difference is in in the distribution of jobs that women take and men take. You can’t solve that as a workplace issue, even though it sounds like you can if you say, “Women make 87 cents on a man’s dollar.”

What’s the most radical change you think HR will experience in the near future?

DNA is going to find its way into the workplace. There’s a genetic snippet of how well you process oxygen, and if you don’t have it, it’s impossible to be a sprinter. Then there’s a gene that the military looks at to select front-line soldiers, called the warrior gene, which controls how long you stay mad about something. The army tries to get people who stay mad for about 12 hours, but if you have someone who stays mad for 12 hours running a candy store, that’s a bad decision. It’s probably against the law to make that decision right now. There’s not a talent management system that I know of that can import and understand genetic data. It’s going to be very interesting, and nothing like people think it’s going to be.

JASON CORSELLO: WHAT’S MISSING IN THE PILE OF HR PREDICTIONS FOR 2014

Jason Corsello, our special good buddy, credits his HR colleagues with some sound predictions for the year ahead. But what’s missing, he cautions, is some much-needed perspective.
“[M]ore often than not, the grandiose thoughts we all wrap with a pretty bow for the new year never really pan out the way we hope they will,” writes Corsello on Human Capitalist.
Here, Corsello sheds some “realistic light” on what many HR experts predict will happen in 2014:

Technology Isn’t a Job Killer

  • Prediction: Technology is rendering many HR jobs obsolete.
  • Reality: “[T]echnologies will transform HR jobs, not remove them. This isn’t to say HR folks weren’t doing their jobs before, but with the help of new technologies, the growth of skills and the depth of reach for HR professionals previously swamped with paperwork and a difficulty connecting with talent will increase.”

There’s a New Way to Narrow the ‘Skills Gap’ 

  • Prediction: The gap between what educators are delivering and what today’s modern workforce needs will close.
  • Reality: No it won’t. “Instead of hiring for experience in 2014, let’s hire for learnability,” writes Corsello. “Why not teach them rather than dismiss them as unqualified?”

Wearable Tech Is a Personal — not HR —Trend

  • Prediction: Wearable computers are coming to HR departments.
  • Reality: “As HR tech is still being adopted on more traditional devices like PCs and mobile, jumping right to wearable because people are talking about it right now is a mistake. The groundwork needs to be solid before companies invest in the extra bells and whistles.”

Face-Time with Remote Workers Still Matters

  • Prediction: New technologies will help remote workers retain a sense of culture and community.
  • Reality: “While I don’t doubt these technologies will help, I do think that HR teams will have to work much harder to maintain a sense of culture and community for remote workers…discounting in-person company interaction could be a mistake.”

THE GOOD & BAD NEWS ABOUT WOMEN’S RISE IN THE WORKPLACE

Women who work have come a long way since the macho, cigar-puffing, strip club-filled ways of “Mad Men.” But they still have a lot farther to go.
Women are equally represented in the workforce in terms of their numbers — and, yes, are paid more than they ever have been when compared to men — but young workers still think gender inequality is a major issue in the workplace, according to a Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends survey. Seventy-five percent of Millennial women think more changes are necessary to achieve gender equality in the office, compared to 50 percent of young males.
What changes do Millennial females want to see? More career advancement and more money.

Cracking the Glass Ceiling

Females still struggle to climb the corporate ladder. Just look at Fortune 500 companies: only 4.2 percent of CEOs are female, a figure that hasn’t really changed in recent memory. The culprit, according to the study’s authors: women are still opting out of their careers in droves to raise children. According to the survey, 51 percent of women said being a working mother made it harder to advance in their careers, whereas only 16 percent of men said the same. What’s more, more fathers found that parenthood made career advancement easier (10 percent) compared to mothers (2 percent). 
As for compensation, female workers, not surprisingly, want to earn the same wage as their male peers (50 years ago women earned 57 cents for every dollar men pocketed; today it’s 77 cents). But one reason for the narrowing disparity: male wages have dropped 4 percent on average for men over the last 30 years while female wages have risen 25 percent.
Why can’t women get equal pay for equal work? Education isn’t the answer; more Millennial women are enrolled in college and graduating with Bachelor’s degrees today than men are. Other unquantifiable factors, according to the survey, include gender stereotypes, discrimination, lack of professional networks and women’s resistance to negotiate for promotions. Experts agree these factors likely account for 20 to 40 percent of the earnings gap, according to the survey. 

Perception vs. Reality

The study highlights some interesting disconnects. While many women say that men have an unfair advantage when it comes to wages and treatment at the office, only 15 percent say they have been discriminated against based on gender. Also, most men and women say the genders are paid equally for performing the same job — and only one in 10 women say they are paid less than their male peers.
What gives? Why do you think there’s such a difference between perception and reality? And what do you think needs to happen before women are truly equal — both in pay and status — in the workplace?

SPOTLIGHT ON WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: HOW A BADGE CAN IMPROVE EMPLOYEE COLLABORATION

In the age of mobile technology, wearable devices like Google Glass and FitBit are redefining the way people move and, ultimately, interact. While some HR experts argue that mobile technology — specifically wearable — is redefining the way employees work, others believe it’s only a transitional technology. Nevertheless, companies are investing in different types of mobile technologies to improve employee collaboration in 2014.
One wearable that is on some company’s radars comes from engineering and electronics company Hitachi. In 2007, it introduced the Business Microscope: a device that uses sensors to monitor and analyze how employees interact with one another — from how many interactions specific employees have with one another to the hand gestures they use and energy in their voices. Companies are now leveraging the technology to boost workplace productivity and reduce inter-team conflicts.
It may seem far off, but as Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, recently wrote on Forbes, it’s not as far off as it may seem. “While products in this space have not emerged yet, we anticipate that [in 2014] we will be discussing ‘wearables’ and ‘location based devices’ as the next big trend in workplace and workforce technology. Disruptive? You bet. These applications will challenge HR in many ways (privacy for one) but also give us brand new ways to improve how we work.” 

Big Data in the Workplace

Business Microscope is just one of many examples of how companies are leveraging big data to better understand how to enable their employees to be more productive and efficient. And it seems to work…when used correctly.
According to H. James Wilson at The Wall Street Journal, one company used Business Microscope to merge two product-design groups that failed to communicate. The manager of one group was able to analyze communications and conclude that he was the problem since he didn’t interact with the groups much. As a result, the manager connected the groups and encouraged them to interact with one another and leverage the others’ expertise.

Tackling Privacy

Tracking when and how employees interact can push the limits of employee privacy if not communicated from the get-go. That’s the whole goal of the technology anyway — improved communication and collaboration. Talent management experts from Sociometric Solutions suggest three tips to be transparent about this type of technology moving forward:
  1. Tell employees what’s being tracked and analyzed
  2. Clarify that individual data isn’t seen, only aggregate data 
  3. Give them the option of participating, don’t make it mandatory 

Explaining cousins

From time to time I’ve noticed fellow bloggers expressing confusion about distant cousins. They will write something like “my second cousin twice removed (whatever that means).” As a professional historian who also assists with genealogical research, I am here to end your confusion.

People who share the same mother and/or father are brothers and sisters. People who do not share a parent but share at least one grandparent are first cousins. (Often, when we say “cousins,” we are referring to first cousins.) People who do not share any grandparents but share at least one great-grandparent are second cousins. People who do not share any great-grandparents but share at least one great-great-grandparent are third cousins. Tracing the human line back to Adam and Eve (or at least as far back as Noah), all people on earth are cousins to some degree, whether they are first cousins or thousandth cousins.

As for the distinction of “once removed” and so on: my first cousins’ children are my first cousins once removed. My first cousins’ grandchildren are my first cousins twice removed. My second cousins’ children are my second cousins once removed. My second cousins’ grandchildren are my second cousins twice removed. And so on. In other words, the levels of removal are differences in generation, even if (as is the case with me) you are closer in age to your first cousins once removed than you are to their parents, your first cousins.

The generational removal can go the other direction as well, but only if the kinship is not closer. For example, the parents of my first cousins are my uncle and my aunt, not my first cousins once removed. But, since the grandchildren of my first cousins are my first cousins twice removed, I am also their first cousin twice removed.

I hope this information is helpful. J.

DEAR REWORKER: MY BOSS IS AN HR NIGHTMARE

Dear ReWorker,
I am the lead HR person in my organization. I report to the CFO, but I have a great relationship with my CEO. When I took this job it was my dream job. The company has a wonderful mission and I had a real chance to make a difference in employee engagement and all things people related.
However, my boss—the CFO—is a complete nightmare. The CFO leads by fear, bullies other employees, uses terms that can be considered racially and sexually insensitive and tells others about our CEO’s personal life and situations. If this person weren’t my boss, I would have terminated him yesterday.
The problem is, I cannot function and do my job—ethically and morally—any longer under this person. What recourse do I have? If I go above my boss’ head to the CEO, I know what repercussions I may face. Yet, I cannot function as the head of HR for this organization while reporting to this person. I feel as though I need to report to the CEO, so I can report what is happening without fear. What would you do in this situation?
Sincerely,
Moral Dilemma
________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Moral Dilemma,
First, you should eat a lot of ice cream. It won’t solve anything, but it will make you feel better—at least temporarily. Second, you need to go back and re-read what you wrote: “If this person weren’t my boss, I would have terminated him, yesterday.”
You’re the head of HR. Your job is to help the business grow through policies and practices that make the employees perform at a higher level. Right now, as much as I hate to say it, you are failing at your job.
You have to go to the CEO. While leading by fear and bullying aren’t illegal (dumb, but not illegal), sexual and racial harassment are illegal. The fact that you know about the behavior opens the company up to more legal liability than if you didn’t. Why? Because you’re the head of HR. You’re legally required to act when you know about sexual harassment or racial discrimination.
So, essentially, your fear of the CFO being upset with you is putting the CEO’s company at risk. If someone decides to sue, they can, and because you’d be honest in the deposition, they’d win. Here’s how it would go.
Attorney: Ms. HR Manager, were you aware that the CFO was sexually harassing employees?
You: Yes.
Attorney: Did you conduct an investigation?
You: No.
Attorney: Did you report this to the CEO?
You: No.
Judge: Get out your checkbook. Your business loses.
Okay, that’s the short (and not so sweet) version, but it’s based on truth. It’s your job to tell the CEO when there is something going on that will hurt the company. What’s going on with your CFO, regardless of whether or not he is your boss, will hurt the company.
You need to go to the CEO today and say, “We need to talk about the CFO.” Then lay out what you know and the legal consequences of not acting immediately. Suggest contacting an employment lawyer right away to go over your legal options, which include firing the CFO.
Sorry to be so depressing, but it’s critical that this gets taken care of! That’s why the CEO hired you: to keep the company safe. Sometimes that means turning in your boss. If you have a good relationship with the CEO, you shouldn’t face any problems. He or she should trust that you have the company’s best interest at heart.
If the CEO protests, remind him or her that everybody can be replaced. There is no single person at the company that is so important that everyone else needs to be sacrificed. This CFO is causing damage. While legal liability is part of it, you probably have higher turnover than you should because of him, and turnover is expensive.
And one last word of caution: If the CEO is like, “That’s just how Steve is. Deal with it,” then you need to look for a new job and leave. That’s not a dream job, that’s a nightmare.
Your ReWorker,

DO LINKEDIN ENDORSEMENTS MATTER?

I accept LinkedIn invitations from anyone. Some people agree with this strategy, others disagree. My logic is that I’m happy to connect with as many people as possible. And if I can help any of them out, even better. As a result, I have many LinkedIn connections whom I have never met, let alone worked with.
In addition to connecting with me—a total stranger to some—many of these people have endorsed me for skills. Sounds great, right? Some of these endorsements make sense, like “blogging” or “human resources management,” because the way they found me was through articles like this one and they know I’m good at these things. But what about the others? Do LinkedIn endorsements actually hold water?

A Quick Look at LinkedIn Endorsements

Let’s begin with “HRIS.” That stands for HR information systems. I did a ton of work in this area, and I am really good at it. So while it makes sense for some of my former co-workers to have endorsed me, other people who have never worked with me have endorsed me for that skill as well. While I’ve written a few technical articles about turnover and the like, there’s not a valid way for my network to know that I can work magic with Excel and a little bit of pixie dust.
But the endorsement that really stumps me is “deferred compensation.” Not once in my life have I worked on deferred compensations. The closest I’ve come is when I handled the layoff for a guy with a deferred compensation and offered him a severance package worth more than $100,000. He never signed the general release or asked for any changes. When I followed up with him, I found out that his wife made so much money that the tax implications on an extra $100,000+ were just too much of a burden to even bother with the money. (Not joking here.) And yet, people have endorsed me for this skill.

The Problem with LinkedIn Endorsements

LinkedIn endorsements have the best of intentions, but the lack of effort involved—one “click” and the person is endorsed—often means they’re unreliable. In fact, it takes the same amount of work to endorse the person that pops up on your screen as it does to make the screen go away. People click them without thinking because it’s a nice thing to do. Well, it might be nice, but it’s not very helpful.
Recruiters, instead of focusing on endorsements during talent acquisition, concentrate on the key words in your candidates’ profiles. Seek out connections with people who have demonstrated experience in each of their endorsement areas. Most importantly, always ask for references. LinkedIn endorsements may be a good starting point, but a little blue button isn’t enough to help you weed the great talent from the bad.

6 WAYS TO SUPPORT YOUR WORKFORCE THROUGH TIMES OF UNCERTAINTY

6 WAYS TO SUPPORT YOUR WORKFBe it a natural disaster or global health concerns, your organization is bound to encounter some unexpected external circumstances. It’s not always easy to keep your business running smoothly during these trying times—especially when crises are dominating headlines—but it’s up to HR to ensure employees remain motivated and reassured. 

So what can you do to help reassure your people, when so often they look to you for knowledge, advice and expertise on such topics? Here are a few ways to support your workforce during times of uncertainty. 

1. Plan for Specific Scenarios Before They Happen

HR professionals can’t predict the future but they can have a plan ready to go when employees and managers look to them for answers on how to navigate these difficult situations. 
Contingency planning is especially important in the world of work. The economy, the political climate and several other factors impact how your business operates. Take an economic downturn, for instance. If the Dow were to drop significantly, it would likely require your organization to make staffing changes. Meanwhile, policy changes like new legislation around the gig economy and data privacy can impact employees’ day-to-day routines, so it’s important to stay up-to-date on what’s going on outside the office so that you can better prepare your workforce. 
Contingency planning also means preparing for unlikely and potentially frightening events, like natural disasters and widespread illnesses. In the case of the former, it may be worth conducting training that helps workers know what to do if, say, an earthquake hits or tornado strikes (e.g., how to evacuate, where to seek shelter, etc.). You might also take proactive measures to purchase office rental insurance or move all paper files onto the cloud. Meanwhile, for health-specific cases, contingency plans might include rethinking how your business operates if employees need to work remotely for an extended period of time to limit risks. Conducting a “trial run” of sorts can ensure employees have the tools they need to work from home effectively. That way, if and when the time comes when they must avoid going into the office, they are prepared to continue working effectively from home. It will also be important to develop a plan for these employees who need to quarantine themselves. Brainstorm ways to keep them feeling engaged in their work and included on the team. 

2. Communicate with Workers Early and Often 

As employee expectations continue to change, organizations are placing increased emphasis on transparency. Many companies are sharing information that was once considered confidential with their employees, from business financials to data around diversity and inclusion. Communicating with transparency shows employees you value them and want to keep them updated on what’s happening across the organization. 
Transparent communication is especially important when dealing with unforeseen circumstances because it empowers organizations to build trust and gain respect from employees. Telling your staff how and why you’re making certain decisions or taking specific actions will give them peace of mind that HR is there to protect them—whatever the circumstances may be. Prepare ahead of time so you are not scrambling when everyone is looking to you for answers.  Most of what you would need to communicate can be preplanned so that you are only making minor adjustments when you need to act.   
Take the current global health scare: The probability that you will have not just one, but multiple employees contract the coronavirus seems inevitable based on current information available.  Have you thought about what you plan to say to them, their colleague, an entire office or even your customers? Conversely, have you trained your employees on what to communicate or how to act when they are faced with a customer who may be coughing and sneezing or showing other signs of flu symptoms in your stores? Protecting your employees and your brand require thoughtful consideration, planning, and training. 
But it’s not just HR that must communicate with employees—it’s also imperative that managers and leads are comfortable speaking with their teams about these issues. Train managers on how they can effectively communicate these various scenarios to employees. 
In the event that a member of your company is diagnosed with the virus, be prepared to communicate this information truthfully and sensitively to your staff without shaming these individuals. When they return to work, pay attention to how they are reacclimating and make sure their colleagues treat them with respect. 

3. Lead by Example 

HR leaders and C-level executives set the tone for the company from the top down. For organizations to succeed, senior leaders need to practice what they preach. Executives who fail to lead by example will leave workers confused about how they should act. 
For example, if you advise staff to put their health first by avoiding unnecessary business travel, but then ignore your own advice by boarding a plane across the country for a conference a few days later, you will likely send a mixed message. 
When leaders model appropriate behaviors, their employees know exactly what’s expected of them. This allows them to focus on their work rather than spending time and energy second-guessing company policies. 

4. Allow for More Flexibility

There has been a growing trend towards flexible work schedules over the last decade. This benefit not only helps employees successfully manage their work-life balance, from cutting down commute times to ensuring working parents can pick their kids up from school, it also provides employees with the support they need during times of uncertainty.
For example, allowing employees to work from home or encouraging them to take time off if they aren’t feeling well gives them an opportunity to recover and come back feeling refreshed and well-rested. Offering paid sick leave enhances productivity and reduces turnover. It’s also proven to slow the spread of disease. And during times of crisis, employers shouldn’t shy away from strictly enforcing rules around coming into the office. If someone is exhibiting signs of a cold, encourage them to work from home or even take time off to get better. If your sick policy is not robust enough to account for current health scare, or lead employees feel they have to come to work because of lack of pay or fear of disciplinary action, it’s time to revisit your practice—even if only on a temporary basis.
Consider scenarios where employees may be uncomfortable working in close proximity to their colleagues who have traveled, even domestically, or attended conferences, concerts or other large gatherings of people. Allowing fearful employees to work from home will help them to be more productive and focus on their surroundings.  
But beyond offering location flexibility and paid sick time, organizations must actually foster a culture that empowers employees to work from anywhere in the event that the office closes for an extended period of time. Make sure every employee is reachable via multiple modes of communication, including phone, email and chat. Some organizations might even invest in portable technology or  implement remote working policies that provide clarity and empower employees to act. Most importantly, employees must understand that they won’t be penalized for working from home. 

5. Offer Learning Courses on Relevant Topics

Of course, uncertain circumstances often require employees to make some adjustments to their day-to-day schedules, and it’s up to HR to provide them with the tools they need to carry on with their regular tasks. Learning and development programs that are accessible from anywhere can give employees the guidance they need to continue to thrive on the job. 
For example, if your organization has adopted a more flexible work from home policy, a learning course on how to stay productive when working remotely can help employees manage their tasks and stay engaged. Meanwhile, online courses about stress management and mindfulness can help employees navigate worrisome situations—while simultaneously equipping them with important soft skills for the future of work. 

6. Readjust Your Goals

In times like these, it’s important to understand that change is inevitable. Instead of attempting to minimize issues that are beyond your control, embrace these challenges by adjusting your organizational goals accordingly. Encourage employees and managers to be adaptable and be there to support and guide them along the way. Be sure to also apply these adjustments to other stakeholders, such as customers or suppliers. For example, be open to rescheduling client meetings where travel is required. Consider hosting purposeful and engaging virtual meetings instead. And if your organization is planning to attend a large conference, or is hosting its own, be realistic about your sales, marketing and client expectations given that some people—including your own employees— may not want to travel.  

Making these adjustments isn’t always easy—and it might take some time. But by providing the necessary resources and support across your organization, employees will be able to navigate whatever changes may come their way. ORCE THROUGH TIMES OF UNCERTAINTY

LITTLE MANAGEMENT MISTAKES THAT MAKE GOOD EMPLOYEES QUIT

Everybody knows that the most common reason for quitting is that an employee doesn’t like the boss. Lots of people take this to mean that bosses whose employees quit are horrible people who yell and scream and micro-manage everything from font size to the type of fingernail polish allowed in the office. Those bosses absolutely exist, but there are other types of bosses that are generally good bosses—even generally great bosses—that still do little things that drive good employees insane.
These little things grate on the nerves of the best employees, while mediocre employees don’t even necessarily notice. If you have a superstar employee, take note, and avoid the following:

1) Expect Greatness and Reward Mediocrity

One thing about great employees—they consistently produce great work. So much so that the boss comes to expect it. So, when Jane does another fantastic presentation, everyone yawns, but when Shelly—who is generally a slacker—pulls together a half decent presentation, everyone cheers. It’s okay to encourage Shelly, but don’t forget to reward Jane for her fabulous performance.

2) Salary Caps

Most companies have these for each job. They make sense—you don’t want to pay someone above market rate. The problem is, fantastic employees often max out pretty early. And then what? They work hard, they bring in great business, and the clients love them, and their reward at the end of the year? “Uhhh, good job, Jane. You’re already at a company-ratio of 105 percent and we just can’t go any higher.” If you had to replace Jane, you wouldn’t get near the productivity Jane has from the new person, so it may be worth it to break your rules, or give her a growth promotion with a higher salary.

3) Treating All Employees the Same

At first glance, that seems like a great management practice. After all, you don’t want to play favorites. The problem is, not all employees need the same guidance and direction. If you have an outstanding employee who wants to work from home one day a week, move heaven and earth to make that happen. Otherwise, she’ll find somewhere that will let her work from home three days a week, and you’ll be stuck recruiting.

4) Preventing Promotions

You can’t get along without Jane—she does a great job at everything. So, when she says she wants to move into a vacancy in the neighboring department because it’s a promotion, you refuse to sign off (if your company requires a current manager to sign off), or you tell your peer, “You can’t have Jane!” Either one means that Jane is now looking externally. Remember, your obligation is not just to your own department, but the company as a whole. While you have to replace Jane, either way, all her knowledge and skill stays in the company, and you’ll still benefit from her fabulous work.

5) Ignoring Ideas

Your employees see a different side of the business than you do. It’s just how it works. So, when you ignore suggestions from them you may be accidentally ignoring something that would really make a positive difference.
Star employees get frustrated when they can see solutions but managers don’t allow them to present those solutions. Take the time to listen and implement when you can. If Jane has always produced great work, why wouldn’t you think this would be a great suggestion? And if it turns out that it falls flat, that doesn’t mean you’re always right; it simply means Jane made a mistake this time around. It’s called learning and it’s essential for growth.

DEAR REWORKER: WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT A LACK OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES?

Dear ReWorker,
During the interview for my current job, I emphasized that I wanted a job with professional development opportunities. The hiring manager said that professional development was important and definitely a priority. After six months, I approached my supervisor about a recognized professional certification that I wanted. It was an 18 month online course, so I wouldn’t miss work, but it was expensive. He said no.
The company announced this week that the same training program would be available at no cost to the department, but I’d have to be out of the office for 20 days. My boss said 20 days away was a no-go. I told this to a co-worker, and she said the management team said I’d be perfect for this. However, my boss said, “She’s so good, they’d probably try to steal her way from us.”
I want to go back to my boss and ask her to reconsider my application. But, I can’t bring up anything I know about what my coworker said, for fear of getting her in trouble. How can I do this?
Sincerely,
Bait and Switch
________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Bait and Switch,
Sometimes knowledge is power and sometimes it’s paralyzing. You now know that your obstacle to learning opportunities is your boss’ fear of losing you — this kind of knowledge is likely to spur some negative feelings towards your boss. There are different ways to approach this situation. But first — how long will you stick around this company?
If you are planning to stay there no matter what (and have communicated that), then your boss probably doesn’t feel pressure to concede, and you need to be more communicative. This is one of the reasons companies throw all sorts of perks at new hires and barely give raises to long-term employees—they think you’ll stick around forever.
The next thing to consider is why mentioning what your co-worker said to you could get her in trouble. You don’t want to have a co-worker punished for trying to help you out, but it’s worth asking her if she minds. She may say, “Please leave me out of it,” or she may say, “Yes, please tell your boss that I told you this.” For now, we’ll assume that she wants to stay out of it.
So, what do you say to your boss? If you’re planning to stay no matter what, you can still ask something like this: “Bill, I’d like to talk about this development class. When you hired me, we discussed how important things like this were to me, and you agreed that was the direction you wanted to take the department. What can we do to make this work?”
If he says no, then follow up with, “I understand that this particular class won’t work, but let’s get something on the schedule for 2017 so that we can plan ahead.”
If you feel ready to leave unless you receive the development opportunities you were promised, then begin the same way, but when your boss refuses you need to push back: “Bill, I made it very clear from the beginning that these training classes were important to me. I would not have taken this job if I had known that I would not have development opportunities. We need to make a plan or I need to move on.”
Now, this last statement is super-duper scary. But remember, you have knowledge that is powerful—your boss is terrified of losing you and the other management team members love you. Use the knowledge you have to empower you, not paralyze you. You can start looking to move on to other departments or a new company. He can’t stop that. Once he realizes that, he’s more likely to give you the opportunities you negotiated.
Your ReWorker,

DEAR REWORKER: MY BOSS AND I DISAGREE ON AN EMPLOYEES RAISE, WHAT CAN I DO?

Dear ReWorker,
I’m an HR manager of a small company. My boss lives on the East Coast. His assistant, who works in the West Coast office with me, is up for her first annual review. I think she seems good and should get a traditional merit increase, but my boss is telling me she’s terrible and doesn’t deserve a raise.
He hasn’t ever given me anything to write her up for, and the only solid criticism I can get out of him is that she, “doesn’t anticipate [his] needs.” I think he is out of line. What do I tell my employee when she asks why she didn’t get a raise? That my boss is unhappy that she is not psychic? I am embarrassed to be in this position.
Sincerely,
Stuck in the Middle
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Stuck in the Middle,
First of all, you need to clarify the reporting chain. Are you the assistant’s boss or is he? Granted he’s your boss, so at the very least, he’s her boss’s boss, but who is her direct manager? As a general rule, you wouldn’t be her actual supervisor as HR manager. It’s complicated by the fact that you are physically in the same office as the employee and he is not.
Even if he’s her manager on paper, you are likely taking on this role in person frequently. This clarification is important because the answer will help you determine the amount of push-back. If you are her supervisor, by all means, you should go to him and say, “Jane reports to me and she’s met her goals, and I want her to receive a raise.” If you’re simply the HR manager, then you can push back, but in an advisory way, ” Jane has met her goals and should receive a raise, as all employees who meet their goals do.”
Regardless of who her boss is, it’s critical that you have this conversation with your boss before presenting her the information. It would be a disaster to say, “You stink and you’re not getting a raise. No idea why!” He needs to articulate something other than she doesn’t anticipate his needs.
You’ll have to coax this out of him. Ask him questions like, “Can you give me an example of how Jane didn’t anticipate your needs?” and then listen. It may be something perfectly logical—like for every project when he does A, she should do B, and that enables him to do C, and for whatever reason, she doesn’t do B until prompted. It may also be something completely illogical. He does A, doesn’t tell her he’s finished with A, only talks about Q, and then gets mad that she didn’t do B. If his reasoning is illogical, push back. But, even if you are her direct supervisor, as your boss, he can have the final say (presuming there isn’t someone above him).
If he refuses to authorize a raise for her, you can’t imagine one out of thin air, or hide payroll from him for eternity. So here’s what you say: “Jane, John feels that you aren’t anticipating his needs as you should. So, unfortunately, you won’t be receiving an increase this year.” She’ll freak, and you’ll have to direct her back to John.
Ultimately, the most important thing to do is ensure this doesn’t happen again. She, and everyone in the company, needs clear goals and expectations. These need to be written out and checked off throughout the year. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself in this position again and again—if not with this assistant, then with another employee.
Your ReWorker,

LEADER VS. MANAGER: 5 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES

When aliens land on earth in the movies they never say, “take me to your manager.” But why not manager? Aren’t leader and manager synonyms? Is it important to understand what defines a leader vs. a manager? I mean, my boss leads my department, so she must be my leader. What is the difference between leadership and management?
In an ideal situation managers are leaders. But when that’s not the case, here are five differences between a leader and a manager.

1) Managers Manage the Tasks at Hand. Leaders Lead Towards the Future.

Managers are focused on getting the current job done. That’s fine—it needs to get done. But a leader is looking at the big picture. He or she asks the tough questions, such as: How does this task lead towards the quarter’s goals? How does this fit into the company’s overall plan? How does this help prepare the employees for their future career goals?

2) Managers Supervise People or Tasks. Leaders can be Individual Contributors.

There are people managers and project managers. Each has a defined set of responsibilities. Sometimes a leader doesn’t have a big title, and it’s just the person that everyone looks up to for guidance and direction to be an individual contributor. This person embodies leadership and people naturally follow. This is the type of person to watch out for and promote to management.

3) Leader’s Guide People Towards Success. Managers Tell People What to Do.

If you’re a checklist type of a manager, you’re probably not a leader. Check boxes aren’t bad—they aren’t. But, if all you can do is tell people to check off boxes, it’s not leadership. A leader inspires and supports other people to succeed, and sometimes that involves individual tasks and sometimes it involves letting things evolve on their own.

4) Leaders Are Willing to Give up control. Managers Set Directions for Everything.

When a direct report becomes too proficient, it can send ill-equipped managers into a frenzy. Leaders rejoice and recognize that this person is ready for more responsibility and a possible promotion. Managers may be tempted to keep their tasks and their projects close at hand. Leaders recognize when someone is ready to take on new responsibilities and rejoices in that.

5) Leaders Care About the People. Managers Care About the Numbers.

Numbers are important—anyone who tells you otherwise is off his rocker. However, they aren’t the only thing that matters. A manager might bark at a slow moving worker to pick up the pace, but an empathetic leader will ask if there is a problem and offer a solution. Both leaders and managers may end up firing an employee who can’t pull it together, but a leader will try to resolve the issue first.
Resolving a problem is often a more difficult task than firing an employee. Ignoring a it doesn’t make it go away and will likely encourage your best employees to quit. Managers focus on hitting targets, while leaders see if their team is solid and if there are problems brewing.
If you’re a manager—whether it’s of a project or people—stop and take a look at how you conduct yourself. Are you acting as a true leader, or simply as a manager? It is important to understand the differences that define leaders vs. managers and to make sure you focus on developing the former.