Quantcast
Subscribe!

 

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

E-mail Steve
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Listen to internet radio with Steve Boese on Blog Talk Radio

    free counters

    Twitter Feed

    Entries in culture (60)

    Wednesday
    May032017

    PODCAST - #HRHappyHour 284 - Transforming HR with Technology, Live from Talent Space 2017

    HR Happy Hour 284 - Transforming HR with Technology, Live from Talent Space 2017

    Host: Steve Boese

    Guests: Bailey Borzecki, Dogfish Head Brewery, David Mennie, Saba

    Listen to the show HERE

    This week on the HR Happy Hour Show, Steve Boese is Live at Talent Space Live 2017 and talks with Bailey Borzecki, HR Inspirations Manager of Dogfish Head Brewery and David Mennie, VP of Product Management of Saba about how HR and talent management are being transformed through technology at Dogfish Head. Bailey shared some of the growth story at Dogfish Head from a startup to a 350-person organization spanning 36 states. Technology plays a key role at the company to support goal setting and goal alignment, to make manager-employee 1-1 meetings more productive and effective, and in fostering Dogfish Head's collaborative culture bases on feedback.

    Additionally, we talked about the importance of user experience and user adoption, the best ways to use technology to facilitate employee engagement, and whether or not Bailey is the only 'HR Inspirations Manager' in America. Steve also shared some early HR Happy Hour tales and his long-time partnership with Halogen Software, (now a part of Saba).

    You can listen to the show on the show page HERE, or by using the widget player below:

    This was a really fun and interesting show, we hope you think so too.

    Thanks to Bailey and David for joining the show and thanks to Saba for having us out at the event.

    Be sure to check out show sponsor Virgin Pulse - www.virginpulse.com to learn more.

    Subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher and all the podcast apps - just search for 'HR Happy Hour' to subscribe and never miss a show.

    Monday
    Jan302017

    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. 

    Monday
    Jan162017

    Blue Monday

    Blue Monday is not just the name of a New Order song from the 80s, it is also the designation given to the third Monday in January (that is today, in case you are still sleepy), by the British academic Cliff Arnall. Dr. Arnall postulated that a combination of factors including gloomy winter weather, holiday debts, time since Christmas and a general lack of motivation conspire to make this day, the 'bluest' or most depressing day of the year.

    And while it might be easy to pass off the idea of Blue Monday, or any most depressing day of the year as kind of a silly joke, I think like all good jokes there is at least some truth lurking within. For most of this past weekend (at least here in the USA), the news was dominated by extreme winter weather events, the impending inauguration of a new President that without getting into the politics of it, seems to have at least half the population in a tizzy, and punctuated by your favorite sports team losing in the big game.

    It is really, really easy to get a little down this time of year. Yesterday I thought I saw a small sliver of blue sky in what has been a typical, relentless, and yes, depressing series of gray, wet, and cold winter days. I actually stopped what I was doing to stare for a minute, (maybe I should have taken a picture), at a sight I had almost forgotten about. Immediately after completing this post, I am booking a trip to someplace warmer and sunnier.

    I'm joking, but only kind of. When you think about the concept of Blue Monday, and think about how you fired up you were, (or were not), when you were forced to crawl out of your warm bed and face the cold, dark, and potentially icy day, then I bet for many of you, (and the folks you work with), Blue Monday does not sound all that crazy.

    It is tough out there. It is especially tough today, if Dr. Arnall's formula is even a fair indicator of how the combination of weather, work, and personal pressures all seem to come together and smack you in the face this time of year.

    So here's my advice, (I hope to take it myself), for Blue Monday. Go outside, (if ice is not falling from the sky, I mean). Pet your dog. Or find someone else's dog to pet. Take a real lunch break. Call a friend. Eat something that is not on your diet. And finally, most importantly, be nice to each other. We are all in this crappy Blue Monday together.

    And if all that fails, feel encouraged that as bad as it gets today, well, things are only going to start looking up from here.

    Happy Blue Monday.

    Have a great week!

    Friday
    Dec092016

    Color of the Year 2017

    I continue to be completely, and probably irrationally fascinated with Pantone's 'Color of the Year' designation and process.

    In case you are unfamiliar (shock!), with Pantone and the Color of the Year designation here is all you need to know. Pantone is the world's leading authority on color, color systems, and publishes the industry standard definitions of colors. In other words that nice new orange shirt you just bought is not just 'orange' it is 'Pantone Persimmon Orange 16-1356 TPG'. Pantone provides guidelines and definitions for thousands of variations of colors, and it is the standard by which colors are classified.

    Each year the color experts at Pantone declare one specific shade the 'Color of the Year'. This specific color, (in 2016 it was actually two colors of the year, 'Rose Quartz' and 'Serenity' in case you did not know), is meant to be a kind of reflection of trends in art, design, fashion, movies, popular culture, and branding and often will subsequently become more common in actual products like clothing and jewelry as a result of the Color of the Year designation. So perhaps if you think back on 2016 and think you have seen a lot of Rose Quartz and Serenity around - sort of a pastel-type pairing of blue and pink, you have Pantone to thank or blame for that.

    So this week Pantone announced its choice for Color of the Year for 2017 a bright, happy, spring-like shade of green called oddly enough 'Greenery'

    The rationale behind this choice of of Greenery for color of the year?

    Here's what Pantone's color experts had to say about the selection:

    Greenery is a fresh and zesty yellow-green shade that evokes the first days of spring when nature’s greens revive, restore and renew. Illustrative of flourishing foliage and the lushness of the great outdoors, the fortifying attributes of Greenery signals consumers to take a deep breath, oxygenate and reinvigorate.

    Greenery is nature’s neutral. The more submerged people are in modern life, the greater their innate craving to immerse themselves in the physical beauty and inherent unity of the natural world. This shift is reflected by the proliferation of all things expressive of Greenery in daily lives through urban planning, architecture, lifestyle and design choices globally. A constant on the periphery, Greenery is now being pulled to the forefront - it is an omnipresent hue around the world.

    A life-affirming shade, Greenery is also emblematic of the pursuit of personal passions and vitality.

    So what, if anything, should any of us care about what Pantone says about culture, trends, society, fashion, and how we all are collectively feeling - expressed through the colors we are seeing and using more and more?

    I suppose the main thing to think about is right in the verbiage Pantone used to describe their thinking processes behind the selection. The words restore, renew, fortifying, and life-affirming all show up in the description. Pantone is suggesting that the colors (and feelings) we will seek in 2017 will be ones like Greenery, a color that (if such a thing is possible), will help to make us feel  - comfortable, vibrant, refreshed, and more inspired to take on the world perhaps.

    No matter your personal point of view, it is pretty fair to characterize 2016 as a kind of mixed bag of a year. The US economy continues to recover from the 2008 lows, unemployment is really low, the stock market as I write this is at another all-time high. But lots and lots of folks are not sharing equally, if at all, from this recovery and growth. And of course the recent election and the aftermath remind us all how fundamentally split this nation can be. 

    Pantone thinks/hopes that Greenery will 'provide us with the reassurance we yearn for amid a tumultuous social and political environment. Greenery symbolizes the reconnection we seek with nature, one another, and a larger purpose.'

    Let's hope.

    The colors we choose say plenty about us, about who we are, how we feel, and perhaps how we want to feel.

    What do you think? Ready to rock plenty of Greenery in 2017? I think it would make an excellent tie, (in case you have not shopped for my Christmas present yet).

    Have a great weekend! 

    Monday
    Jul112016

    Is it a great company culture or just a collection of great talent?

    Lots and lots of folks like to push 'culture' as the primary driver of organizational success. I have written and presented pretty extensively on why I think that's wrong. Check any of my 'Rock-Paper-Scissors' posts in case you are interested.

    One of the many reasons I get a little skeptical about this 'cult of culture' is that by its very nature culture is hard to define, to measure, and hard to draw any kind of a direct (or even a dotted) line from culture to actual results. I'm not saying it's impossible, but just really, really, tough.

    But another reason why culture gets too much emphasis is how easy it can be to confuse a great culture with what is really just a collection of great talent. This challenge was discussed, I think very effectively, on of all things an NBA podcast I was listening to recently, by ESPN writer Kevin Arnovitz on the July 6 episode of The Lowe Post Podcast.  Lowe and Arnovitz were discussing the recent decision by NBA star Kevin Durant to leave the Oklahoma City Thunder and join the Golden State Warriors - a team famous for their 'culture'.

    Here's Arnovitz' observations on culture v. talent, then some comments from me after the quotes:

    On an NBA team is culture permanent? Or is it really just transient? Is it this fancy word people like us to describe what is really just a concentration of good talent, but it seems like culture? But actually what it is is just really good basketball players there? Which is why they (the Warriors) win, it's not because they have any special connection to the community of San Francisco like people like to talk about. 

    Steve here - I think these observations are spot on, especially in a business setting like an NBA team where individual talent and excellence plays such a critical role in organizational success. Said a little differently, it is almost impossible to achieve the highest level of team success in the NBA without at least one superstar player, and one or two other All-star caliber players. You simply can't win without that talent level no matter how fantastic your team's culture may be.

    And I know that I get a fair bit of heat from folks for trying to make these kinds of HR/talent points using sports analogies, as some folks think that an NBA team and its dynamics offer little to us to learn from, back here in the real world. But I continue to think that they are valid ones to make, especially as more and more organizations and work teams have to rely on ideas, innovation, creativity, and quite simply talent, in order to succeed in a hyper-fast, hyper-competitive world.

    Ask yourself some of the questions about your organization that Arnovitz hints at.

    What would really drive increased performance at your shop? More talented people? Or a somehow 'better' culture?

    Which one of those levers is easier for you to influence? To measure? To replicate?

    This isn't about me trying to convince you that culture = bad and talent = good.

    It's about making sure we keep both in mind, (along with Strategy, if we really want to get back to my Rock-Paper-Scissors take).

    When you put 4 of the best 10 or 12 best basketball players in the world on the same team you are going to win A LOT of games. If at the same time you have a great culture, you may win one two extra games.

    But the great culture without the great players? Good luck in the draft lottery next year.

    Have a great week!