On corporate reactions to current events

I don't think I need to recap the series of political and policy events here in the USA over the last few days that have seemingly set thousands if not millions of folks (and almost EVERYONE) on Twitter afire.

In the aftermath of a contested, contentious election, the first days of the administration have been, depending on your point of view, either a colossal and dangerous train wreck, or simply the expected result and consequences from a series of campaign promises/threats that have been acted upon.

Since it doesn't matter to you what I think about these actions, and no matter what I think I would not change anyone's mind anyway (and I am not really interested in changing your mind. Make up your own mind), I'd rather make a couple of comments on what I have seen from the many 'corporate' responses to the events of the last few days.

From what I can observe, there have been three major categories of 'corporate' response, (or non-response), to the recent Executive Orders from the new President.

1. 'We' (meaning the corporation, even though I would suspect that the individual CEOs that are penning these responses are not really able to consult or poll all of their employees in just a day or two), are 100% in opposition to these policies, and we are actively working to see them overturned or ended. We are donating to the ACLU, providing free services to those affected (see Airbnb), and want everyone to know that we are NOT COOL with this. This has been the response from many high-profile companies, many of them from the tech space.

2 'We' (again the corporation), have a culture of openness, inclusiveness, tolerance and fair treatment towards all. We support all our employees regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. We will extend direct services to our employees who may be impacted by these policy changes. This is sort of a toned down version of response 1, focusing more on their internal people and their families. It could be seen (and has been by some), as the more pragmatic CEO/corporate response, particularly for organizations that have business and dealings with the various arms of the Federal government. See Elon Musk/Tesla for a decent example of this approach.

3. Nothing publicly announced at all. This is actually the majority of organizations I would think. For every big tech company CEO who has issued a statement or a Tweetstorm condemning the recent events and policy changes, there are 100 if not more organizations who are not commenting on it at all, or at least not publicly. There a a million reasons to do/say nothing publicly as a CEO/organization, and saying nothing does not mean necessarily that the CEO/organization does not object or rebuke these new policies.

Wait, I just thought of a potential 4th response. The one where the CEO comes out openly and aggressively in support of the recent Executive Orders on immigration, placing him or herself in line with the new President an Administration. Note, a quick scan of headlines while drafting this post has resulted in zero examples of this actually happening. Doesn't mean it hasn't, but I have yet to find any CEO/organization, (at least a national brand), coming out in support of these policies.

I know what you might be saying, that this particular policy change and set of orders are SO egregious, so un-American, so divisive that there is no way, no person, no CEO, no organization could support them. In fact, they are such an affront to what we like to think makes America a great country that it really is not controversial at all to come out strongly against them. And you might be right be that.

Why think about these 'corporate' responses/stances to current event, particularly as and HR/Talent pro?

Because once the CEO of the organization takes a public stand on issues as divisive as these, it sets down a kind of organizational culture marker that will be just about impossible to ignore or alter in the future. When the CEO comes down hard in opposition (or support) of these kinds of flash point debates, and if he/she commits organizational resources (time, money, products, services), on one side or another, the message gets pretty clear, pretty fast.

And no matter what side of this (or the next big issue) that the CEO does come down on, (and one last reminder, I am not telling you what I think about this, or what you or your CEO should think), there is almost certainly going to be a cohort of stakeholders, (employees, customers, candidates), that are not going to see eye to eye with your CEO, and by extension, your organization.

And that might be fine by you, as and HR/Talent leader, to have this element of the organization's DNA and culture laid bare such that employees and candidates that find themselves in stark opposition to the accepted (or at least stated) views will naturally begin to self-select out. They either will resign, will start looking for another job, or decide not to apply in the first place. Either way, you have maybe saved yourself some time in trying to answer the 'Is he/she a 'fit' for the job here' question.

But that is not really the point, at least not the main point. The word 'divisive' implies that at least some people are on the other side of that divide from you. And I think we have to be very careful that we don't forget that. Because the next 'divisive' issue might not be so clear cut. It might not be so obvious which side your CEO and your organization should be on, (assuming both of those things matter). The next issue might have very cool-headed, rational, logical people on completely opposite sides. And should both of those kinds of people be welcome in your organization?

Lastly, and this is I swear the end of this (too long) post, you also as an HR leader should probably ask yourself this question:

Is a person's opinion on the current political debate of the day a valid, predictive, appropriate screening question for employment at your firm and whether they meet the criteria for the ever tricky idea of organizational 'fit'?

Have a great week. Be good to each other. 

Two years away (from being two years away)

At the National Basketball Association player draft in 2014, former college basketball coach and now broadcaster and analyst Fran Fraschilla offered this classic observation of then 18 year-old Brazilian prospect Bruno Caboclo and his potential to become a successful NBA player:

"He's two years away from being two years away, (from being ready to play in the NBA), and then we'll see."

I thought about this gem of a line from Fraschilla in a recent conversation I was having with a friend about potential career choices. Why did the '2 years away' line come up?

Because I think that 2 years may be the new 5 years, in terms of the old classic interview "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" question. Take your pick from fast-changing technology, new business models, disruption coming from all sides, and toss in a side dish of the gig economy and I think most people would have a really hard time seeing out five years into the future and be able to offer up a credible or coherent idea of what they think they will be doing then. Two years seems at least more tangible. The future can't move that fast, right? Don't answer that.

The really important point isn't just that 2 years might be the new 5 years, but that just like our pal Bruno Caboclo, what you don't want is to find yourself two years from now STILL being two years away from whatever goal/plan you had set out to reach.

It may be more realistic and reachable to set out career plans and goals in 2 year increments as opposed to 5, (or whatever your dopey interviewer says), but the downside is that 2 years passes really, really fast.

Just ask Bruno, who in 2 1/2 full seasons in the NBA has played in a grand total of 22 games and scored a whopping 16 total points. 

The upside? Bruno is still only 21 and has time to get to where he wants to be. 'Losing' two years might not hurt him that much. 

But I am pretty sure that most of the rest of us don't have that kind of luxury. Or an NBA contract.

Have a great day!

PODCAST - #HRHappyHour 273 - HR Tech 3.0 and More of What HR Leaders Need to Know

HR Happy Hour 273 - HR Tech 3.0 and More of What HR Leaders Need to Know

Host: Steve Boese

Guest: Randy Cooper, Co-CEO, PeopleStrategy

Listen HERE

This week on the show, host Steve Boese is joined by Randy Cooper, Co-CEO of PeopleStrategy to talk about some of the big themes and trends in HR and HR Tech as we begin 2017. First we had HCM 1.0, marked by 'big' systems that helped organizations manage all kinds of back office functions, then HCM 2.0, the beginning of the internet era, where we see the first HR and Recruiting processes migrate to the web.

Think the first ATS tools, Benefits outsourcing, the emergence of SaaS for Talent Management, etc. And now in 2017 we are at the start of HCM or HR Tech 3.0, where (hopefully) the best elements of both HCM 1.0 and 2.0 are coalescing and combining to create a set of greater capabilities, service delivery options, and advanced capabilities that back in the 1.0 days, we only dreamed about.

Does HCM 1.0 and 2.0 add up to HCM 3.0? Should HR leaders chase the next shiny object? Where can HR leaders turn to get better educated on the HR Tech landscape?

You can listen to the show on the show page HERE, or using the widget player below (email or RSS subscribers click through)

Listen to the show to hear a lively and interesting discussion about the current set of HR technologies, the challenges and opportunities they present, and what HR leaders need to know as they plan their organization's HR Tech strategies moving forward.

This was a fun and interesting show, thanks Randy for joining us.

And of course, thanks to our show sponsor Virgin Pulse - learn more at www.virginpulse.com.

Finally, subscribe to the HR Happy Hour Show on iTunes, Stitcher Radio, or your favorite podcast app.

On the balance between data and people

Quick shot for a busy Monday. If your organization is one of the many that has or has implemented or has at least considered implementing a more data intensive and analytical approach to the HR and talent management, then I recommend taking a quick look at the comments from a young leader in another discipline where data and analytics have completely changed talent management - the world of professional soccer.

Since Moneyball, and maybe even before that, all kinds of sports (baseball, basketball, soccer, and more), have seen a kind revolution and sea change in the approach to player evaluation, team building, and even in-game strategy driven by the increasing availability of advanced data about player performance and better tools to assess and crunch that data. No leader of even a half-decent professional sports team fails to consider metrics, data, analytics, etc. when making decisions about talent.

And so it has also come to pass that in the 'real' world of work, more and more organizations are or have embraced similar and data driven approaches in their talent management programs. Assessments that validate a candidate's 'fit' for a role, algorithms that assess employee data to flag flight risks, or models that pinpoint expected future leaders are just some of the examples of how data/science/analytics are being used in HR.

But if you have begun adopting these data-driven approaches to talent management processes and decisions how can you know if you have perhaps gone too far, or have let the 'human' part of human resources fall too far by the wayside? 

I think the answer is that it is kind of hard to know for sure, but you probably know it when you see it. But i think it stands to reason that today still, in any field that human performance and human capability are what matters, then it can be dangerous to completely trust the data and fail to consider the people.

Here's what Julian Nagelsmann, (millennial, for what it's worth), manager of the German Bundesliga side Hoffenheim has to say about blending data, analytics, and the 'human' side of management in forming his approach to leading his team. (Courtesy of The Ringer):

I studied sports science and have a bachelor of arts. The variety of football data is becoming more and more specific. You shouldn’t make the mistake of looking at football as a science, but there are more diagnostic tools, and the examination of the human body is improving in football: What effect does AstroTurf have on the body? What does lots of shooting do? What does lots of passing do to muscles? There are always new methods and you have to go with the science, but football will never be a science.

There will be more influence from science to analyze games, and you have to keep educating yourself. But you mustn’t make the mistake of seeing football as something technocratic or based on something that is fed by science. You can develop the person by using scientific aspects in your judgement, but the human is still the focus.

A really interesting take from a manager of a team of highly accomplished (and highly compensated), professional soccer players. Even in sports, where every move, every decision, every physical reaction to game circumstances can and is analyzed, and the subsequent data parsed and performance conclusions reached - Nagelsmann still cautions us to not forget the humans. 

In fact, he goes much further than that - he claims the human has to remain the focus.

Take in the data, be open to the data, don't be a data Luddite - but don't let it become the only tool you use as a manager or a leader.

Super perspective and advice from a leader who sits completely in the nexus of an industry and discipline that has been historically a 'gut feel' business that is being disrupted by data and analytics. 

Use the data. But don't forget about the people.

Great advice for a soccer team or for an organization near you.

Have a great week!

The Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy - Part VIII

Time to revive an old series on the blog, and one of my favorites - on the (continuing) Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy.

Since it has been a while, here's a little refresher on just who Jeff Van Gundy is, and why management, leadership, and organizational culture types should listen closely to what JVG has to say about performance, talent, and team dynamics.

JVG is currently an NBA analyst and announcer for ESPN, previously he was the head coach of my beloved New York Knicks, as well as the Houston Rockets. He was successful as a coach, but may even be a better fit for broadcasting, as he over the years has shown consistent insights into the game, coupled with humor, irreverence, and fun that makes games in which he is broadcasting essential viewing for NBA fans.

We've covered many of JVG's insights on the blog in the past, (good examples are here and here), and while listening to JVG recently being interviewed on ESPN's (Zach) Lowe Post Podcast, he had this nugget of enlightenment about the importance of conflict amongst team members, and how it is necessary (often), to drive performance improvement.

Here's the JVG quote, and then a quick comment from me:

(Some context, Lowe and JVG were discussing if players who are 'bad' or who have abrasive personalities should have that held against them when judging their performance) 

JVG - To me, it is not about are you 'easy' in the locker room, it's are you right. If you are causing tension for the right reasons at the right times, to help spur your team to confront their issues, and their problems and you're willing to be confronted as well about your own issues and your own problems, then tension is a good thing. 

This idea that everything should be happy go lucky in a locker room when you are a mediocre team, I disagree with. It's hard to get from mediocrity to average then from average to pretty good and from pretty good to good and then from good to great if there's no conflict. Conflict puts everybody's cards on the table. If you are causing tension for the right reasons at the right times and you are willing to be coached as well and confronted as well then I think tension is a good thing.

A really interesting, and I think accurate, assessment of how conflict, how an occasional 'difficult' personality type on the team, and the tension and butting of heads that that kind of a person can cause should not be immediately looked at as a negative.

In NBA basketball, and probably in your organization as well, there are plenty of folks who think their performance and their contribution is perfectly acceptable, and their position on the team is totally secure. They may even be your 'top' performers. But even they, probably, need to be challenged from time to time. Even they need to examine their own performance at least once in a while.

And in basketball, and again, probably in your shop too, it often takes a gruff, difficult, hard to get along with personality type to force people into that kind of self-examination. And often in basketball, and for the final time, at 'normal' workplaces too, the tendency is to immediately point the finger at Mr. or Ms. 'Difficult' and ostracize them, (or simply get rid of them), for rocking the boat.

As JVG reminds us, when a team of any kind aspires to do more, to do better, to achieve great things, some conflict along the way is not only inevitable, it is likely essential.

Think about that the next time you are wondering what to do to make that hard to get along with person who likes to find the issues in what is going on around the office to simply pipe down and get along.

Maybe they're not actually the problem after all.

Have a great weekend!