Just finished reading Ben Eubanks’ blog on men in HR for his “National Geographic Exclusive” and it struck me enough to stop what I was doing and start writing.  Not that I don’t LIKE writing a session description for a total rewards seminar, but…

Good question to explore – why is it that men have traditionally shied away from human resources?  Is it because back in the day “personnel” was purely administrative and considered a short step away from being a secretary, which was typically a woman due to the organizational power structures in the ‘50s?  Is it because, as Ben said, that the compliance part of the job tends to attract more females than males?

Now, I know that Ben is not trying to stereotype and he states that in his remarks.

But, it gets me thinking. 

Personally, I think a lot of women gravitate to HR because of the “friend factor,” meaning that HR folks have to do a lot of listening and dispensing of advice, which is some of what friends do for each other.  Friends also take the good with the bad and roll with the punches and will put up with most things, just as HR does.  Could possibly be a girl thing….could possibly be not; research has found that women’s focus on relationships is what leadership truly needs today to get ahead.

Ben says,

“I don’t want to lay any blanket statements on the ladies out there, but my little experience seems to point to most of them focusing on compliance and how to keep things “safe.” More of the males, however, seem to be focused on how to keep the goals moving forward and holding onto the strategic focus…”

Rather than this being a “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” issue, could the fact that women dominate the HR landscape be because of:

(a) the lasting legacy of administrative work in HR, which has chased away a lot of men,

(b) because women like the relationship part and so gravitate towards HR as it fulfills a need, or

(c) because the work itself has evolved into a compliance-centric model and needs a burning platform.

I’m kinda of going with (a), (b) and (c) here. 

Think about how HR has changed–or not changed–in the past 20 or 30 years.  Big, big focus on compliance.  Big, big, focus on protecting the organization from employee litigation.  Big, big focus on cost control.  Lots of administration. Lots of paperwork.  Lots of women in mid-level roles looking for balance.

To me, it really has to do with society’s view of women and their roles.  It’s not necessarily because HR tends to be compliance-bound.  A great article I found on www.referenceforbusiness.com regarding gender and leadership says,

“Other reasons women ascend to leadership positions less frequently than men are that women most frequently inhabit managerial positions with little power , little advancement opportunity, or where other women are so rare that their presence is attributed to their sexuality or affirmative action…outside their paid jobs, women usually have significant responsibility for the care of their families and home, thereby depleting the energy they might otherwise devote to the pursuit of leadership positions of consequence…”

Now, granted this article is several years old, but I don’t believe a whole lot has changed in society quite yet, athough I do believe the sea change will be hitting hard come 2018-2020 when over 50% of the workforce will be women.  

It’s interesting that men are in the minority in HR, but yet may be perceived as the go-getters and strategic focusers.  It’s probably because of the unconscious bias of society toward working women.  Or, it could be the function of HR.  Or, it could be simply one thing…

We women are tired from all that multitasking.  Coffee, anyone?

Is It Really A Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus Thing? is a post from: The HR Whisperer

Photo courtesy of Emma's Teashop for Old Ladies

Didn’t get to go to the SHRM annual conference in San Diego this year (or any year for that matter), so I took it upon myself to try to read as much as I could about all the conference doings and such.  After my bazillionth blog, it hit me.  A LOT of these fine folks are saying similar things. 

 And I kinda got pissed off.

 You know, I’m going to go out on a limb here and respond to all the Bloggers, Tweeters, SHRMers, etc. that are saying that, for HR to be effective, it must hear from its practitioners in the field – not from the consultants, academics, etc. who have been populating the national, state and local HR and related conferences around the country and probably around the world.  Such as from:

 Tim Sackett from Fistful of Talent, “When I was preparing to go to SHRM and deciding on what sessions to attend – my very first impression was “seems like I’ve been here and done this before”  – my next impression was “why does 90% of presenters have either consultant or speaker as their title?  Where have all the real HR Pros gone?”

 Ben Eubanks from Upstart HR, “Some of the sessions I went to were wonderful, and I took a lot of notes (and even wrote about some, too). Others didn’t turn out so well. I went to two or three sessions where the speaker read off of slides or just didn’t hit the topic the session was supposed to be about. That’s fine, when that happened I just left or started talking to someone in the crowd. I did my best not to waste any time during the event…”

 Another comment from Ben, “One of the most profound statements I’ve ever heard from Eric was this: move up, not out. So many amazing HR pros eventually take off and leave the profession instead of continually climbing to be Directors, VPs, and Chief HR Officers. We need more great people to ascend to those positions instead of leaving them to the people with seniority by default (even if they don’t have the skills or passion to be great at it)…”.

 Michael VanDervort from The Human Race Horses, “My big learning was really just a verification of what is an old discussion – HR needs to reinvent itself, and it is the practitioners who need to make that happen through aggressively transforming the way we think and work…”

 Mark Stelzner from Inflexion Point, “Second, I was sadly disappointed by the attendee reaction to a keynote featuring a panel of HR leaders, including Google, Northrop Grumman, Kaiser Permanente and Deutsche Bank. SHRM’s membership is generally not comprised of the senior-most HR professionals from the world’s largest firms, so when they actually take the time to show up, share best practices and offer advice, you damn well better pay attention. Attendees swarmed from the session, first in 2’s and 3’s and then by the dozens. Are you there to listen to Steve Forbes and Al Gore or should you perhaps learn from those who have theoretically arrived at your career destination? And if you did walk out early, you missed a gem from Deutsche Bank’s Conrad Venter when he predicated that HR will be obsolete in ten years if we stay on our current course…”.

Kathy Rapp from Fistful of Talent, “When people ponder the future of HR or ask, “What’s wrong with HR?!” it’s my belief we don’t have enough HR pros who possess the attitude of “Give ME the ball or I want to win the game.”  If there were, we’d have more HR practitioners teaching at SHRM conferences and sharing their own personal stories of achievement and beating the odds.  We’d have more HR folks who move into top leadership roles in their companies outside of HR vs. those non-HR executives who “land” in HR to finish out their careers.  Frankly, we’d have more students coming out of college wanting a job in HR because of the opportunity to build successful business careers and make a better than average living…”

 And, Charlie Judy from HR Fishbowl, “Much of what I see today seems oriented too much toward developing pansy HR subject matter experts and not focused enough on injecting the HR professional pipeline with people who are Ninjas in navigating workplace complexities, sorting through emotional dynamics, acting with agility, and thinking critically.  Without that stuff, you’re just a commodity; after all, anyone can learn to manage a benefit plan…sorry.  If as a profession we are really committed to making HR more crucial to an organization’s value stream, I think we should see stuff like this in the syllabus…”

 What’s the common thread here, people? 

What I interpret is that HR has to change.  No ands, ifs or buts about it.  And I am totally up and down with that.  But change is NOT going to come from the folks who have been doing the same things year after year after year – the HR generalists and practitioners slogging along, waiting until retirement. 

You know, the ones who run to the conference expo hall for all the free swag. 

The ones who leave when senior HR leaders do participate and try to help start the transformation.

Makes me mad as hell.

Here’s the thing – I have consultant and speaker in my title – and guess what?  I was still am an HR practitioner and OD specialist.  As a consultant I get to go into a lot of different organizations and see what’s happening at the macro and micro levels.  As a speaker, I get to share ideas –in an interesting and engaging way – that hopefully serve to inspire and get people to start thinking and doing things a bit differently. 

That is what a teacher is,  you know.  Someone who is focusing on the future and hopefully opening new minds to new ideas.

So, that is what I take from all these comments.  We don’t just need practitioners to share their thinking; we need new minds, new ideas, and new ways of doing things – no matter where they may be.  And that is going to take some serious shaking up and shaping of up of HR.   It’s time.

That’s why I love reading the comments and blogs – new minds, new thinking, new ways.

Makes me aim to misbehave.

Going Out on a Limb, Here is a post from: The HR Whisperer

How many companies can create excitement about a new product like Apple does? Once again, with the advent of the iPad they are in the lead when it comes to creative disruption. Creative disruption is when a person creates something or solves a problem that transforms. Nintendo also did it with its Wii console. Did you know that one of the fastest growing markets for the Wii is nursing homes where residents can get exercise and be entertained at the same time? Wow, who knew?

Disruptive leadership is a concept that is rapidly gaining ground in the new millennia – leaders create problems that must be solved. The solving of the problem serves as the catalyst for the organization to create change, whether that change is a new product, new service, or just a new way of doing things. When an organization has to solve a problem, it can provoke the necessary motivation to make a huge leap in innovation.

It can be hard for a leader to create problems. It’s counterintuitive when you think that most of us are taught from an early age to either fix a problem quickly or find a way to get rid of it. A study on NPR a few months ago noted that in a classroom, kids with disruptive behavior have more influence than the kids who behaved. If you took out the behaving kids from the class, it made no difference to the learning environment, but if you took out the kids who were disruptive it made the class unstable in a negative way.

But we teach kids to behave and we do the same thing at work – teach people to behave by solving problems we want them to solve.

As a leader, who do you look for in the next generation of leadership? The person who behaves or the person who disrupts?

True disruptive leadership comes from learning continuously and managing chaos. While change can be chaotic and distressing to some, if an organization and its people do not evolve, that stagnation can be fatal. Apple realized it when Pat Scully kicked out Steve Jobs and they later had to bring Jobs back in resurrect the company.

Sometimes it’s better to be disruptive than to behave.

So, how to begin to think like a disruptive leader? There is a wonderful case study in Forbes magazine about P&G’s invention of Align, an over-the-counter probiotic supplement. Check it out here. In the article ,chief technology officer Bruce Brown offers the following words of wisdom for those wishing to become disruptive leaders. He says:

Be a coach, not a gatekeeper. Don’t just say yes or no – work along side your team to help them solve the problems the encounter.

Embrace uncertainty. There are innumerable opportunities for creative disruption. Disruptive opportunities are characterized by high levels of assumption and low levels of knowledge.

Learn to trust your judgment. Your gut is based on past experience and intuition. Making decisions based on only hard data might be a mistake.

Change your mind. Stop meetings midstream to get new people in the room to change the dynamics and the thinking.

Problems are opportunities to misbehave. Your mindset will determine how clearly you see what is in front of you.  Problem…or opportunity?

Aim to Misbehave is a post from: The HR Whisperer

I was watching an old Cesar Milan rerun the other day on how to train puppies and in it he introduced a new pitbull puppy named Junior.  Now for anyone who watches the Dog Whisperer, you know that his all time fav and constant pit companion, Daddy, passed away in February of this year at the ripe old dog age of 15.

In Cesar’s Way magazine, Milan discusses his selection of Junior:

“…when the time came – about a year-and-a-half ago – I took Daddy along. Any newcomer in our house would first have to get Daddy’s approval. That’s how we wound up at the home of a friend whose female pit bull had given birth to a litter about two months earlier. One puppy, all gray with just a little dash of white on his chest, caught my attention immediately. Some people – the Dali Lama, for instance – have this calm energy. So do some dogs. Daddy has it. And I quickly realized that this little gray puppy had it too. In fact, he reminded me of Daddy when he was a puppy…”

This got me thinking about succession planning.  That is what Milan was doing when he found Junior – preparing for a new Daddy or top dog.

When was the last time you had succession planning on the agenda?

Executive transition is a crucial moment in any organization’s life and should be broached even when nobody’s anticipating a change in leadership.  Think back to 2004 when McDonald’s CEO Jim Canalupo died from a heart attack; the company named Charlie Bell six hours later.  Then a few weeks after that, Bell was diagnosed with cancer and the board again needed to make a replacement.  Sometimes a company has time to prepare – and sometimes they don’t.

Without a plan, an executive leaving can be uncertain, painful and difficult, both operationally and politically.  It’s hard to think strategically when you’re busy putting out a fire.  So, here’s three things to think about in preparing for succession.

Have a bus book.  Robert VanHook and Jackie Eder-VanHook call this the “what to do if the executive is hit by a bus” plan.  A bus book is a compendium of critical information about an organization.  While it doesn’t take the place of succession planning, the book can help an interim executive get up to speed while the organization assesses its next step.  Bus books should include contact information, organizational policies and procedures, financial statements, audits, budgets, board minutes, staff lists and resumes, important contracts, etc.  Remember, it’s a supplement to the succession plan, not a substitute.

Ensure that there is a succession contingency plan. With a plan in place, the organization will have coverage while leadership decides what its next step should be.  The plan should include an assessment of where the organization is, where it wants to go and what kind of leadership it needs to help it get there.  The plan should also include an outline and timeline of succession procedures, a communications plan that discusses who should be told of executive departures and when, a plan for how the leader will be replaced and a financial plan for covering the costs of replacement, whether the successor comes from inside or outside the organization.

Align the succession plan with the organizational strategy from a people as well as a business perspective.  This is key.  There are a ton of examples out there of senior leaders brought into place in a succession arrangement – and failing spectacularly.  Emotional intelligence is just as important as business acumen.  Think of when Sam Walton retired in 1988 and put David Glass in place.  Wal-Mart did great financially, but from an emotional intelligence perspective, not so much.  Same thing with Carly Fiorina and HP.  Great culture shift when she took over the reins, but at a huge cost to employees.  It was no surprise that employees at one of the HP plants passed out Ding Dongs to announce “the witch is dead” when Carly was fired in early 2005. 

Finally, make sure that your succession plan has a process to recruit high potential employees, develop their skills and abilities and prepare them for advancement.  Succession planning is not just for senior leadership positions; it is often the mid- level positions that are the most crucial to the organization in terms of business and cultural success.  These mid-level positions are a great feeder pool and often are ignored in favor of bringing in someone new in. 

Planning takes energy and time but it’s worth it.  Do you have a Junior ready in your organization?

Succession Planning for the Top Dog is a post from: The HR Whisperer

I was listening to the radio the other day on my way home from the ever-present swim team car pool drive (an hour and a half round trip, ugh) and heard the radio jockeys talking about Valentine’s Day and an article on they found on the Internet related to “64  Ways to Say I Love You.” 

Of course, I went to check it out and thought it was great fun – and something that would be worth translating into showing the love for employees or volunteers.

You see, we don’t do that enough.  And its been worse lately as folks are stressing over the lack of jobs and the lack of a decent economy.  Recognizing employees (and each other’s) contributions takes work – strengthening the relationship takes work – and retaining employees takes work.

So, in honor of Valentine’s day, here’s my list of 64 ways to let employees know you care. 

64 Ways to Show Employee Love

1. Be courteous.
2. Encourage physical and mental health.
3. Have fun. 
4. Don’t compare employees to each other.
5. Give your full attention. 
6. Trust. 
7. Truly listen to what the employee is saying (no multi-tasking!).
8. Be respectful.
9. Share some humor.
10. Be interested in the employee’s interests.
11. Be a cheerleader. 
12. Highlight the employee’s accomplishments.
13. Bring in pizza.
14. Ask for input.
15. Let bygones be bygones; embrace the present – and the future. 
16. Accept the fact that nobody’s perfect. 
17. Play hooky together. 
18. Show interest in the whole person, not  just the at-work person.
19. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar – be nice.
20. Apologize. 
21. Live by the Golden Rule.
22. Better yet, the Platinum Rule-do unto others as they like…unto them.
23. Tell the employee you appreciate him or her. 
24. Take a group picture and post it in your office.
25. Encourage risk-taking and from that, learning.
26. Talk about the day.
27. Laugh.  Best de-stressor outside of prescription drugs.
28. Pick your battles.
29. Have a vision and share it with inspiration.
30. Don’t be competitive; it’s a team effort.
31. Forget about labels – everyone is unique and special.
32. Don’t forget about the commonalities, though.
33. Have an ice cream sundae contest.
34. Watch a great teambuilding movie together like Remember the Titans.
35. Write a “you did an outstanding job” note once a week and mean it.
36. Share company war stories or historical (hysterical) tales.
37. Keep your word.
38. Have them plan the work and then work the plan.
39. Go to a seminar together.
40. Encourage them to join a professional association.
41. Bake cookies in the microwave and share.
42. Be a good idea-bouncer-offer.
43. Show your gratitude; you really can’t do the job without them.
44. Consider employees’ perspectives.
45. Respect personal lives and personal time.
46. Praise publically.
47. Correct privately.
48. Be a person that others want to be around.
49. Take pride in the employee’s large accomplishments.
50. Take pride in the employee’s small accomplishments, too.
51. Share a sincere compliment about the employee in front of other people.
52. Make time for the employee.
53. Recognize that everyone makes mistakes.
54. Give $1 lottery ticket, because they are a winner no matter what.
55. Give space when they need it.
56. Communicate a lot.
57. Be honest.
58. Ask for feedback on your leadership style.
59. Do something constructive with that feedback once you get it.
60. Teach tolerance.
61. Reconnect – do a fun team building exercise.
62. Give the benefit of the doubt.
63. Tell them how important they are to the success of the team and of the business.
64. Be a servant leader.

 True leadership does not dominate – it cultivates.
– HR Whisperer

64 Ways to Show Employee Love is a post from: The HR Whisperer

Once again I must thank my mentor, Cesar Millan, for the inspiration for this week’s blog.  He said that “when humans bring a dog into their lives, they are most often looking for a companion; what they may not realize is that they are getting a teacher as well.”  This is true in a business sense, too.  When we bring a potential leader into our organization, we should be getting someone who can teach or positively influence others.  But teaching goes both ways…is it really possible to teach someone to be an effective leader or is it just genetics coming into play?

Many organizations decide they want to implement a leadership development program because they need better leaders or people who could be put into some kind of succession plan.  The HR department gets the charge to put “something together” and manages to get someone to run the program, get people into it and maybe even toss in a measure or two to try to link the success of the program to a business goal–all within a few months.  Is it any surprise then, that so many of these programs lose steam after one year or fall flat due to budget cuts?  Aside from the timing and operational issues, the real question centers on whether or not leadership development programs truly teach people to be good leaders.

Leadership by its definition is a very complex.  Some say that leadership is a natural thing, that we are born with the innate qualities it takes to be a leader.  Psychologists have continuously searched for the personal attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from the rest of the pack.  A large body of research supports the theory that the “Big Five” of personality traits underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality. In addition to providing a cohesive framework, research has also found strong relationships between the Big Five and job performance, especially in terms of successful leadership.  It’s no surprise then that tools like the Myers-Briggs’ MBTI® or DiSC® tend to be a part of LD programs.

More recent research shows that effective leaders have emotional intelligence (EI).  Daniel Goleman found that high levels of EI predicts high performance.  I would even go so far as to say that the combination of EI and the Big Five trait of extroversion defines charisma.  A definitive study conducted in 1999 on the personalities of two executive management teams found that over a period of five years the charismatic personality of the executive manager and of the team he selected was key to understanding a company’s rise or decline in the market.  

Hmmm.

Now on the other hand, behavioral theories focus on identifying the specific behaviors that differentiate leaders from nonleaders, which implies that these behaviors can be taught, i.e., leadership is a competency that can be broken down into concrete sets of trainable skills.  The most comprehensive of the behavioral theories resulted from research conducted at Ohio State University in the late 40s where the researchers narrowed a thousand different leadership dimensions into two categories: (1) task/structure and (2) relationship/consideration.  The managerial grid developed by Blake and Mouton and the contingency leadership theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s serve as the landmarks for situational leadership theory today.  The Hersey-Blanchard theory in particular focuses on the leader being able to select the right behavioral style based on followers’ willingness and ability.   

So, in my mind good leadership really is a combination of personality and environment. Which brings us back to our original question:  can people be trained in leadership?  The answer to me is an unequivocal yes.  Strong, results-driven leadership development programs worth their salt screen for the necessary Big Five personality traits and then provide adult-centered interventions to develop the skills necessary to:

• Run the task/structure of a business, such as strategic planning and financial management.
• Develop the relationship/consideration in teams, such as communication and conflict management.
• Understand the self and corresponding behavior by opening the Johari Window through extensive feedback, coaching and 360° profiling.

Another question:  if “nature” and “nurture” are important elements of leader effectiveness then, how does experience play a part?  Many believe that the value of on-the-job experience is a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness. Research, however shows that experience alone is usually a very poor predictor of leadership.  There have been numerous studies of military officers, shop supervisors, and school principals that demonstrate that experienced leaders tend to be no more effective than leaders who have little experience.  The problem seems to be in the variability of the situations a leader finds himself in that influence whether or not the experience will transfer to that situation.  Another problem is the assumption that the amount of time a leader spends in a particular position is really a true measure of experience.  So, LD programs need to provide education, training and experience through action learning.

Remember the heroes of September 11?  They may not have had the particular experience of being attacked by terrorists, but may have had the necessary personality traits and training in leading others and influencing them to action.

And that’s what we really need in any LD program.

Nature or Nurture: Training the Leader of the Pack is a post from: The HR Whisperer

You know, as the HR Whisperer, I’m really enamored with the whole idea of creating top performing organizations through positive behavior change. One of my favorite mentors, Cesar Millan, says, “A dog that doesn’t trust its human to be a good pack leader becomes unbalanced and often exhibits unwanted or antisocial behaviors.” It struck me that the same is true for people in organizations. We need to have strong leadership because in many cases our very business survival depends on a stable, organized and motivated team. Business survival instinct is perhaps one of our greatest natural motivators in the workplace and if a person is not guided well, it can not only result in unwanted behavior but total chaos in the long run.

So, I’m digging this concept and working it through in my brain as to how this relates to human capital and wouldn’t you know, I web-stumbled across an article recently published by Harvard Business Review (September 2008). Written by Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis, “Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership” discusses new studies of the brain that show that business leaders can improve team performance by understanding not the psychology, but the biology of social intelligence. How cool. It struck me that scientists have discovered a biological underpinning to what makes a good leader great, which could toss more fuel on the fire in the “leaders are born, not made” camp. (Which I don’t subscribe to, by the way. I believe that anyone, given time and effort can change their behavior – even interpersonally. That’s why I’m in the business I’m in. Oh, I feel another blog topic coming on! <huge grin>)

More on the biology of leadership from Harvard Business Review:

“The salient discovery is that certain things leaders do—specifically, exhibit empathy and become attuned to others’ moods—literally affect both their own brain chemistry and that of their followers. Indeed, researchers have found that the leader-follower dynamic is not a case of two (or more) independent brains reacting consciously or unconsciously to each other. Rather, the individual minds become, in a sense, fused into a single system. We believe that great leaders are those whose behavior powerfully leverages the system of brain interconnectedness…If we are correct, it follows that a potent way of becoming a better leader is to find authentic contexts in which to learn the kinds of social behavior that reinforce the brain’s social circuitry. Leading effectively is, in other words, less about mastering situations—or even mastering social skill sets—than about developing a genuine interest in and talent for fostering positive feelings in the people whose cooperation and support you need.”

Wow. The idea that leaders need good interpersonal as well as functional skills has certainly been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, Goleman coined the phrase, “social intelligence” to discuss this very thing. But what he and Boyatzis are talking about here is different – they’re saying that we have these things in our brains called mirror neurons that mimic what another person does. As social beings, when we “consciously or unconsciously detect someone else’s emotions through their actions, our brain’s mirror neurons reproduce those emotions and allow us to instantly share that experience.” Ever notice when two people are deep in discussion they tend to hold their arms the same way or cross their legs at the same time? That’s the mirror neurons in action.

 So, how can leaders take advantage of this brain interconnectedness? If it stands to reason that followers will create a social connection with their leader, it also stands to reason that they will emotionally feel whatever it is the leader is feeling and behave accordingly. If leaders are emotionless, don’t smile or otherwise engage their followers, they will not activate the mirror neutrons in a positive way, leading to distressed and nonperforming followers, and thus the potential for business chaos. Body language plays a great part also. If a leader’s body language doesn’t jibe with what is being said, the follower will go with the body language. Bodies don’t tell lies, mouths do.

 The bottom line is that when people feel good about what they are doing, when they have a social connection with their leaders, when they feel part of something that is bigger than them, those mirror neurons come in handy. Reinforce the brain’s social circuitry — if you want to motivate those around you, create a positive atmosphere. If you want higher performance or enhanced creativity, be in a good mood and show you care.

If you truly want the best from your followers, kick those mirror neutrons into high gear and create an environment where sincere respect, fun, laughter and performance are a serious part of your business operations.

Social Intelligence and the Biology of the Pack Leader is a post from: The HR Whisperer