SHRMingham

And The Quickest Way for Gen Y to Alienate an Employer Is...

So, by now, you know everything you need to know about Gen Y in the workplace.  Their likes, their dislikes, how they're different from you and me, how they like hot butter on their breakfast toast...

Whoops.. Wrong generation... Seriously, you know it all about Gen Y.  That means bloggers like me shouldn't do 1,500 word manifestos on how to manage them.  It's been done, we really have nothing to add at a macro level.  The micro level?  Still plenty to explore, like ways that Gen Y can pontificate about themselves and alienate every old person (and a lot of Gen Y's as well) in the room

The quickest way for Gen Y to alienate an employer?  Claim they can get it done in less time than anyone else because they're Gen Y.  That's a bridge to nowhere.

That's why Jim Durbin is sick of Gen Y cheerleading by those who can't/don't want to put in a full day of work.  More from the STL Recruiter (aka the Social Media Headhunter):

"Take this Cheezhead writer who just finished his third RockStar.  He prattles on about being challenged and claims that Gen Y can get a full day's work done in four hours.  1) - The actual useful work they knock out is about 30 minutes, as their inability to pay attention prevents them from actually, you know, working.

And there's another problem. Children who think an 8 hour job can be done in 4 hours usually don't understand the job.

It's nonsense.  Gen Y doctors and engineers and teachers and factory workers and loggers and burger flippers aren't getting work done any faster.  A small subset of white, college degree urban rich kids with marketing, PR, and other service jobs are chafing that they aren't respected.  Of course, those professions are also the ones where lack of experience leads to lack of results.  Show me a 23 year old  marketing consultant who can effectively manage an email marketing campaign for a national car dealer and I'll eat my MacBook.  Those industries are under heavy spending pressure, and thankfully, this nonsense will go away as they are laid off and have to take jobs that aren't challenging but at least pay the rent. 

If you don't like your job, quit and start your own business.  The workload will make you too busy and tired to whine, but at least you'll find out if you really have what it takes."

Wow.  Jim nailed that one. The only thing missing was a clip of Dennis Miller at the lead saying, "I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but...".  Full disclosure - there are a lot of hard working, talented Gen Y people, who don't display the behavior outlined by Jim.  Additionally, Gen Y, talking about how they like to be managed, how they like to work?  That's all still fair game and interesting in my eyes.

But, the ones who like to talk smack that the work is easy?  Jim's right about them, and the ones who like to wax poetic about how easy the work is, have always struck me as doing a huge disservice to the other 99% of Gen Ys in the workplace.  Kind of like radical religious sects in certain parts of the world hijacking the faith and reputations of the other 99.9%, who are solid citizens. 

The .1%?  They're the ones with the videocams.. or the blogs...   

David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar? - The Answer Determines If You're Tough Enough to Lead...

Had a cool conversation the other day about a young manager at our company.  The main topic was whether this manager, who's technically very sound and liked by all, had the intestinal fortitude (that's guts, people) to make tough decisions, and generally be enough of a jerk to handle the tough stuff.

Nice folks are routinely the target of these types of questions when it comes to succession planning, aren't they?  Love you where you are, but can you summon the inner jerk if I promote you one or two levels?  Are you tough enough?  Are you still listening to New Kids On The Block and Smashmouth?  Do you own a Disturbed or Godsmack CD?  Did you like Van Halen with David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar?

Sammy?  AH-HA!!!  I told them you weren't tough enough!!!  HaHaHaHaHaHa.....

But, I digress.  My counsel in these situations is pretty simple, when it comes to toughness.  Everyone's got a range in their personality.  If your toughness/confrontation/jerk component isn't as strong as someone else's, you just have to know who you are, and be able to summon what you need, when you need it.  For a tough position, you might have to run at your 95% "tough" level within your range to operate, whereas Sam Zell could summon the same tough/jerk/I'm asking to be sued quotient on demand in the McDonalds drive thru.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say in the business.

After I had that conversation, I found the following article form John Baldoni at Havard Business Blogs, who does a good job of explaining how leaders can be tough without screaming:

They defuse tension. Performing under pressure is a prerequisite for leadership, but too much pressure can be a prescription for disaster. It falls to the leader to maintain the sense of urgency and momentum but also to give people some breathing room. This is not an excuse to slack off; it is an invitation to be careful and deliberate. Also, keep in mind that tension that comes from interpersonal conflicts is seldom positive; leaders need to eradicate it by making some hard decisions about who works with whom and why.

They get up off the floor. There's no shame in getting knocked down; youth sports teaches that lesson very well. What matters is what you do next. Strategies will miss the mark; wrong skills will be applied; and projects will fail. Such is life in the organization. It's a leader's job to get back into the game and keep slogging. That requires resilience, an ability to flex with adversity as well as persevere when the going gets rough.

They let off some steam. If you are a team leader, and someone on your team makes a big mistake, one that he was obviously warned about, it's natural to become annoyed. It is also acceptable to focus some heat on the person who made a mistake. The challenge is to focus your irritation on the action, not the person. He needs to know your displeasure; it may help him pay more attention the next time.

So, don't cheat your talent out of promotions, because you don't think they're tough enough.  Just talk to them openly and honestly about the requirements of the position that involve confrontation.

Then do something most don't once you've had that conversation.  Coach them every week about what you're seeing.  Be a mentor.

Or give them a Disturbed CD and let them listen to it at work to get their mojo rolling.  Your call.

Had a cool conversation the other day about a young manager at our company.  The main topic was whether this manager, who's technically very sound and liked by all, had the intestinal fortitude (that's guts, people) to make tough decisions, and generally be enough of a jerk to handle the tough stuff.

Nice folks are routinely the target of these types of questions when it comes to succession planning, aren't they?  Love you where you are, but can you summon the inner jerk if I promote you one or two levels?  Are you tough enough?  Are you still listening to New Kids On The Block and Smashmouth?  Do you own a Disturbed or Godsmack CD?  Did you like Van Halen with David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar?

Sammy?  AH-HA!!!  I told them you weren't tough enough!!!  HaHaHaHaHaHa.....

But, I digress.  My counsel in these situations is pretty simple, when it comes to toughness.  Everyone's got a range in their personality.  If your toughness/confrontation/jerk component isn't as strong as someone else's, you just have to know who you are, and be able to summon what you need, when you need it.  For a tough position, you might have to run at your 95% "tough" level within your range to operate, whereas Sam Zell could summon the same tough/jerk/I'm asking to be sued quotient on demand in the McDonalds drive thru.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say in the business.

After I had that conversation, I found the following article form John Baldoni at Havard Business Blogs, who does a good job of explaining how leaders can be tough without screaming:

They defuse tension. Performing under pressure is a prerequisite for leadership, but too much pressure can be a prescription for disaster. It falls to the leader to maintain the sense of urgency and momentum but also to give people some breathing room. This is not an excuse to slack off; it is an invitation to be careful and deliberate. Also, keep in mind that tension that comes from interpersonal conflicts is seldom positive; leaders need to eradicate it by making some hard decisions about who works with whom and why.

They get up off the floor. There's no shame in getting knocked down; youth sports teaches that lesson very well. What matters is what you do next. Strategies will miss the mark; wrong skills will be applied; and projects will fail. Such is life in the organization. It's a leader's job to get back into the game and keep slogging. That requires resilience, an ability to flex with adversity as well as persevere when the going gets rough.

They let off some steam. If you are a team leader, and someone on your team makes a big mistake, one that he was obviously warned about, it's natural to become annoyed. It is also acceptable to focus some heat on the person who made a mistake. The challenge is to focus your irritation on the action, not the person. He needs to know your displeasure; it may help him pay more attention the next time.

So, don't cheat your talent out of promotions, because you don't think they're tough enough.  Just talk to them openly and honestly about the requirements of the position that involve confrontation.

Then do something most don't once you've had that conversation.  Coach them every week about what you're seeing.  Be a mentor.

Or give them a Disturbed CD and let them listen to it at work to get their mojo rolling.  Your call.

Most Bad Bosses Were Once Sweet Individual Contributors...

Let's call it what it is.  You know people in your company who are really good at one thing, but really stink at a bunch of other things.  That's not a huge issue when the person is an individual contributor (let's call them a savant to focus on the fact they are super in one important area to your business).  As an individual contributor, you can usually wall them off and keep them out of harm's way. 

Except for email.  You probably wish you could take that away from them, but you can't.  Apparently, this Internet thing isn't a fad.

Back to the issue - The problem with the savants in your organization is that their critical strength is projected to other areas, like managing others.  From Steve Roesser at All Things Workplace:

"Do Any of These Situations Look Familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

Let's call it what it is.  You know people in your company who are really good at one thing, but really stink at a bunch of other things.  That's not a huge issue when the person is an individual contributor (let's call them a savant to focus on the fact they are super in one important area to your business).  As an individual contributor, you can usually wall them off and keep them out of harm's way. 

Except for email.  You probably wish you could take that away from them, but you can't.  Apparently, this Internet thing isn't a fad.

Back to the issue - The problem with the savants in your organization is that their critical strength is projected to other areas, like managing others.  From Steve Roesser at All Things Workplace:

"Do Any of These Situations Look Familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

This Bud's For You - And I'm Going to Need You to Use Both Sides When You Make Copies...

There's nothing more interesting to talk about than when two cultures come together through an acquisition.  How will the cultures mesh?  What's the fit between products/services?  And the big questions if you're an HR Pro - are there going to be fewer jobs, and who's got the better benefits?  If I'm involved in executing the transition, that's what I've got to sell, so those are the key info points for me.

But of course, there are small cultural items that ultimately will mean just as much to employees day to day.  Take the Anheuser-Busch acquisition by InBev for $52 Billion, which BusinessWeek reports may result in Budweiser employees using both sides of the paper to make copies:

"To pay for those deals, Brito (InBev CEO) cuts costs to the bone: The native of Brazil orders his executives to fly coach on most flights, is stinting with standard industry perks like company cars and free beer, and encourages employees to photocopy on both sides of each sheet of paper.

By contrast, InBev's new bride, Anheuser-Busch, comes to the marriage with expensive tastes. The company has spent lavishly on New Media ventures. There was ESPN in the 1970s and more recently the ill-fated BudTV.com. Longtime CEO August Busch III routinely made the 10-mile commute to work by helicopter and once mused whether to buy a castle in Europe for a commercial shoot. His successor and son, August Busch IV, continues the tradition: Employees enjoy free admission to the company's theme parks and get two free cases of beer each month. "I think even the Clydesdales [stabled at Anheuser-Busch headquarters] get better treatment than your average InBev employee," jokes one industry consultant. Executives at Anheuser-Busch and InBev declined comment for this story.

This InBev CEO is known more as a steely operator than motivator.  Brito recalled how he once chafed when given a promotion that included oversight of human resources and technology: "For me, sales was everything," he recalled, while a "touch-feely" concept like leadership "was for poets."

Ouch.  With that quote in mind, I bring you perhaps the biggest leading indicator to let you know how an acquisition is going to go - the profile and history of the acquiring CEO when it comes to acquisitions.  The vast majority of CEOs are going to say the right things when it comes to the culture of the company being acquired.  After all, the integration process is a long one, you have lots to learn and things change.  No reason to shake things up early.

But occasionally, you get a profile like Brito's, who is already imposing restrictions on his own culture and feels like leadership is for "poets".  That can't be good.  It feels like Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap all over again, except maybe a more stylish version.

I'm from the show-me state, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out for my friends at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis.  Be sure to take a look at the article from an education standpoint; it has some great stats on how InBev is walking a tightrope to pay for the deal, and how things like the average margin on a case of beer for Anheuser-Busch distributors plays into making the deal work.

Final thought - how cool would it have been to put "This Bud's For You" on your recruiting collateral?  That had to be like shooting fish in a barrel...

Title Inflation in Organizations - When the Mailroom Guy Has a VP Title...

Ever see the scene in Office Space where the two Bobs (OD consultants) are trying to figure out what people do at Innotech?  They would have loved to tackle the topic of Title Inflation (Bob #1 - "What would you say your title means here?").

There's a solid article from 2007 at Knowledge at Wharton focusing on the topic of title inflation in the C-suite, noting that companies have expanded C-Level titles from CEO, COO and CFO to include the less standard CMO (Chief Marketing Officer), CPO (Chief Privacy Officer) and CTO (Chief Talent Officer).  The article correctly points out that a primary reason for the inclusion of more C-level titles is the desire on the part of the organizations in question to show a functional area's importance and clout in an organization.

Of course, HR Pros know that title inflation has long been an issue underneath the C-suite in companies big and small.  Over the years, it seems like the most pressure in an organization (big and small) from a title perspective revolves around the designations of manager, director and vice-president.  With these titles in mind, here are my top reasons why your managers occasionally want to "beef up" the title of an associate:

1.  Limited funds exist for an aggressive Merit Increase - If the funds aren't there to be super aggressive on the merit side for a high performer, throwing in a beefier title seems like a good way to reward an employee.

2.  Retention Concerns - A manager may believe that a high performer values title and prestige over money, and thus feels pressured to deliver a paper title to a high performer - although their role won't change via the promotion.

3.  Customer Clout - A title occasionally is bestowed on a high performer based on the rationalization that the employee holds a position that is key in dealing with (often negotiating) customers.  In this space, the title is rationalized as being helpful in giving the employee the authority he/she needs with customers. 

4.  Internal Equity - Managers may feel pressure from certain high performers to promote them aggressively in title, due to the titles that others in the organization have for their respective roles.  This factor is intensified when the employee feels like they are on uneven ground with the other direct reports of the manager in question.

Left to the chaos of a non-standardized organization (especially with a decentralized HR function), everyone does their own thing (which is to give out titles without much structure or consistency).   Then someone in the org runs a report, and discovers the mailroom services guy is an AVP (Associate Vice President for all you non-title inflators out there).

You know the drill, especially if you have spent time in a larger company.  What follows the AVP of Mailroom Services discovery is a title standardization campaign leaving many (and I mean many) employee relations issues (hard feelings) as titles are stripped away and replaced by more realistic tags describing what the employees actually do (or as close as they can get).

Been through some of that - it's always much better to provide a little resistance up front and make sure all in the org are on board before handing out inflated titles.  Best place to start?  No manager titles if the person doesn't manage direct reports, and no Director or VP titles if the person doesn't manage managers who have direct reports (multiple layers in their organization). 

After all, you don't want the two Bobs asking YOU about the titles...   

Ever see the scene in Office Space where the two Bobs (OD consultants) are trying to figure out what people do at Innotech?  They would have loved to tackle the topic of Title Inflation (Bob #1 - "What would you say your title means here?").

There's a solid article from 2007 at Knowledge at Wharton focusing on the topic of title inflation in the C-suite, noting that companies have expanded C-Level titles from CEO, COO and CFO to include the less standard CMO (Chief Marketing Officer), CPO (Chief Privacy Officer) and CTO (Chief Talent Officer).  The article correctly points out that a primary reason for the inclusion of more C-level titles is the desire on the part of the organizations in question to show a functional area's importance and clout in an organization.

Of course, HR Pros know that title inflation has long been an issue underneath the C-suite in companies big and small.  Over the years, it seems like the most pressure in an organization (big and small) from a title perspective revolves around the designations of manager, director and vice-president.  With these titles in mind, here are my top reasons why your managers occasionally want to "beef up" the title of an associate:

1.  Limited funds exist for an aggressive Merit Increase - If the funds aren't there to be super aggressive on the merit side for a high performer, throwing in a beefier title seems like a good way to reward an employee.

2.  Retention Concerns - A manager may believe that a high performer values title and prestige over money, and thus feels pressured to deliver a paper title to a high performer - although their role won't change via the promotion.

3.  Customer Clout - A title occasionally is bestowed on a high performer based on the rationalization that the employee holds a position that is key in dealing with (often negotiating) customers.  In this space, the title is rationalized as being helpful in giving the employee the authority he/she needs with customers. 

4.  Internal Equity - Managers may feel pressure from certain high performers to promote them aggressively in title, due to the titles that others in the organization have for their respective roles.  This factor is intensified when the employee feels like they are on uneven ground with the other direct reports of the manager in question.

Left to the chaos of a non-standardized organization (especially with a decentralized HR function), everyone does their own thing (which is to give out titles without much structure or consistency).   Then someone in the org runs a report, and discovers the mailroom services guy is an AVP (Associate Vice President for all you non-title inflators out there).

You know the drill, especially if you have spent time in a larger company.  What follows the AVP of Mailroom Services discovery is a title standardization campaign leaving many (and I mean many) employee relations issues (hard feelings) as titles are stripped away and replaced by more realistic tags describing what the employees actually do (or as close as they can get).

Been through some of that - it's always much better to provide a little resistance up front and make sure all in the org are on board before handing out inflated titles.  Best place to start?  No manager titles if the person doesn't manage direct reports, and no Director or VP titles if the person doesn't manage managers who have direct reports (multiple layers in their organization). 

After all, you don't want the two Bobs asking YOU about the titles...   

The Many HR Uses of the Word "Dude"...

I was watching the wild card playoff games in the NFL over the weekend.  The clear winner?  Not the Chargers, Jaguars, Giants or Seahawks.  For me, the clear winner is Bud Light and their series of "Dude" commercials, which show a specific person using "Dude" in at least ten different contexts in his life.

That got me thinking - how many different ways do HR Managers, Directors and VPs use the word "dude" in their day-to-day professional lives?  The number has to range in the hundreds, but here's my top 5 after doing a little brainstorming:

-After hearing of an event sure to result in a termination ("Dude" with a sense of disdain, slow head nod in the "no" motion)...

-In an effort to correct someone on the fly who is making a career limiting decision/statement ("Dude" with a sense of urgency and alarm, eyes wide open)...

-In a moment of weakness after seeing a large, self-insured medical invoice for your company ("Dude" with a sense of despair and an external locus of control, falling back in your chair from the upright position)...

-In an effort to get a little privacy when you are holding a private meeting with an employee and someone does a quick knock and walks in ("Dude" with a sense of disbelief, hand out with palm pointing upwards to show the fact you need a little privacy)...

-To confirm with hiring manager that you have found the perfect candidate for the open spot on their team (Walking into their office after both of you have interviewed the candidate and you're stopping by to compare notes.  "Dude" with both hands open as you walk in like you expect to hug it out)...

I'm sure you can think of others that rule your workday.  Hit me in the comments with your freshest example and enjoy the many meanings of "Dude" below...

I was watching the wild card playoff games in the NFL over the weekend.  The clear winner?  Not the Chargers, Jaguars, Giants or Seahawks.  For me, the clear winner is Bud Light and their series of "Dude" commercials, which show a specific person using "Dude" in at least ten different contexts in his life.

That got me thinking - how many different ways do HR Managers, Directors and VPs use the word "dude" in their day-to-day professional lives?  The number has to range in the hundreds, but here's my top 5 after doing a little brainstorming:

-After hearing of an event sure to result in a termination ("Dude" with a sense of disdain, slow head nod in the "no" motion)...

-In an effort to correct someone on the fly who is making a career limiting decision/statement ("Dude" with a sense of urgency and alarm, eyes wide open)...

-In a moment of weakness after seeing a large, self-insured medical invoice for your company ("Dude" with a sense of despair and an external locus of control, falling back in your chair from the upright position)...

-In an effort to get a little privacy when you are holding a private meeting with an employee and someone does a quick knock and walks in ("Dude" with a sense of disbelief, hand out with palm pointing upwards to show the fact you need a little privacy)...

-To confirm with hiring manager that you have found the perfect candidate for the open spot on their team (Walking into their office after both of you have interviewed the candidate and you're stopping by to compare notes.  "Dude" with both hands open as you walk in like you expect to hug it out)...

I'm sure you can think of others that rule your workday.  Hit me in the comments with your freshest example and enjoy the many meanings of "Dude" below...