Rapid HR Hiring Process Required In Professional Environment

11 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Human Resources, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Technology, Universities, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

background checks, discrimination, EEOC, higher education, hiring process, HR, Human Resources, recruiting, references, universities

Apollo Mission Control sits empty now. Just like a lot of professional offices.

Highly Skilled Workers are MIA and HR is part of the problem

Large organizations, especially government organizations, are losing great applicants because Human Resources is not keeping pace with the reality of the recruitment environment.

Challenges to Hiring Highly Skilled Workers

The issues:

the workforce has not kept pace with the growth in highly educated and skilled jobs
unemployment is now nearly down to four percent
professional salaries and benefits have flattened as executive salaries have fattened
executives have become more insensitive to workers and less humble about their value to the organization
Human Resources have created a massive bureaucracy that is inhibiting the hiring process

The problem often comes down to the Human Resources department. About the time the Personnel Department became Human Resources, the wizards of bureaucracy established an elaborate maze of hoops and ladders that managers and departments had to push a candidate through to hire a person. Their stated justification for their hiring procedures was to avoid liability and discrimination issues.

The truth is that the policies and procedures of Human Resources also keeps their hand in the organizational functions, and that is job security.

What Human Resources is Required to Do

Every company should have safeguards in place to verify the qualifications and backgrounds of potential employees, ensure that all applicants are considered without discrimination (regarding race, color, religion, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy, national origin, people age 40 or older, disability or genetic information,) and determine a fair and competitive salary/benefit package.

However, only discrimination issues need to be determined for all applicants, and that process must happen before the final selection is completed. Everything else only involves the person that is going to be offered the job.

Once the selection process is completed, Human Resources should be verifying the background and determining the salary and benefits package for the candidate being offered the job. There is no excuse for the final offer process to take longer than a day.

Checking References BS

Wait, I just heard every Human Resource recruiter tell me that the verification of references of a potential employee take forever. References are a joke. Anyone who offers a poor reference is risking a lawsuit, so the time-honored process of checking references is absolutely unnecessary.

Most large organizations complete an I-9 verification, a criminal background check, a credit check, and sometimes a Google Search. A reference is not going to offer as much information as other methods of background checks.

Under the current environment, checking a reference after a job is offered would be acceptable because only something that uncovered a lie by the applicant would be significant, and that would be cause for termination.

Organizations that can’t whip their Human Resources department into reality are risking more failed recruitment searches and watching great people go to their competition.

Highly skilled labor jobs outpacing unskilled labor

PR Fail: What United Airlines Should Have Done

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Human Resources, Internet, Management Practices, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Travel, Women

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

buddy pass, buddy passes, children, dress code, fashion, gate agent, girls, HR, leggings, non-rev, non-revenue, policies, tickets, UAL, United Airlines

United PR: At least we don’t shove the children out at 35,000 feet!

Sunday morning United Airlines once again proved that they have some of the worst public relations people in the business, which is likely a reflection of their top management.

The Situation
Two young girls, ages estimated to be around ten to eleven years old, were prevented boarding a United Airlines flight from Denver to Minneapolis with their family. These were children, not adults, nor young adults. According to United Airlines, they were flying on what is known in the industry as a “Buddy Pass,” which is a relatively free (taxes have to be paid) ticket that is one of the benefits of airline employees.

The girls were wearing leggings, which again, according to United Airlines, is in violation of the dress code of people flying on a Buddy Pass. The gate agent apparently approached the family and told them the girls could not board the plane wearing leggings.

It is important to note that two of the girls did not have any other clothing options at the gate, and the family apparently checked bags with the girl’s clothing in them at the main ticketing, where a United representative had to weigh the bags, check the tickets, and confirm the identifications of each of the passengers. Despite this close contact with the passengers, the ticket agent did NOT prevent the children, nor the rest of the family from heading to the gate.

The gate agent that confronted the family was involved in a “tense” discussion of the dress code issue in front of other passengers. At one point the gate agent bragged, “I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them.”

This became a major public relations issue because passengers in the area were witness to the scene and a passenger from another gate investigated the situation and reported it on Twitter. The gate agent’s handling of the situation was overt enough to cause another family, not involved in the incident, to have their daughter put on a dress over her leggings.

United later reported that the girls later changed and boarded another flight.

What United Should Have Done
It boggles the mind as to the many public relation fails occurred by United staff, but here is what the public relations people should have said and done:

On Sunday, March 26, a family was boarding one of our flights on a special ticket that includes a dress code requirement for the passenger. One of our gate agents determined that the children were not dressed according to that policy, and the family was not allowed to board the flight.

While the gate agent technically followed our policy, we regret that this situation became a public scene. We also regret that our staff did not remind the family of that policy when they checked their bags at the main ticket counter, when the children would have been able to obtain appropriate clothing before their bags were checked.

Our policy is meant to encourage a professional appearance of those passengers who are flying as a benefit of being employed, or being a family member of one of our employees. When this involves children, we attempt to be sensitive to the difference in the typical appropriate dress for their age.

We regret to the manner in how this situation was handled and apologize to the family involved and to the passengers who were witness to this situation at the gate. We are reviewing our policies and how those policies are enforced.

The United Blood Bath
Rather than apologizing, United decided that it would work to sway public opinion against the traveling family and humiliate them further. Their announcement in response to the situation put all the blame on the children and their family and implied that the gate agent who created the scene was the hero.

It is a Trump-like strategy that is based on never admitting failure, even when the failure is obvious. It did produce a wave of approval by people who enjoy watching someone being crushed by a more powerful and insensitive force.

However, this type of strategy builds mistrust of an organization and clearly demonstrates United’s lack of empathy for its passengers, paying or not. It also demonstrates the lack of humanity by a corporation that doesn’t understand the deferred cost of bad public relations, and proves that United doesn’t know the quality of mercy.

Nevada Best Kept Secret: #1 in Crime

05 Friday Nov 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, History, Politics, Pride, Print Media, Public Relations, Rotary, Taxes, Traditional Media, Travel, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

auto theft, Blogging, Blogs, crime rate, crime statistics, Employment, Executive Management, HR, Management Practices, Nevada, New Business World, Newspapers, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, rapes, robbery, Rotary

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Article first published as
Nevada #1 Crime Rate Not Acknowledged
on Technorati

On a late October morning a Wal-Mart employee was ‘disgruntled’ and he decides it’s time to take action. He smuggles a gun into the store and buys ammunition for it in the Sporting Goods department. He then goes to the restroom where he hides in the handicapped stall mulling his decision. He makes a final commitment to confront his bosses and leaves the restroom, straight toward the manager’s office. Once there he confronts the manager, the one he likes, and, at gunpoint, orders him to call two other managers to the office. When they arrive they find an angry man with a gun. At some point the three managers make a run for it and all three are shot. All three live, but their lives will never be the same.

Last week’s shooting of three managers in a Wal-Mart in Reno (Nevada, USA) should not be surprising in a State that has the worst crime rate in the United States. Nevada has been ranked as the Most Dangerous State for the last four years (2006-09) by Morgan Quitno’s (morganquitno.com) annual crime rate report.

Nevada’s Crime Story

Nevada ranks #1 in women being killed by men (1)
Nevada ranks #1 in stolen cars per capita (2)
Nevada ranks #1 in robbery per capita (2)
Nevada ranks in the top 10 for assaults per capita for the last 4 years (3)
Nevada ranks in the top 10 for forcible rape per capita for the last 4 years (3)

What is a surprise is the deafening silence about the State’s notorious ranking by local media. The top 50 hits of a Google search of ‘Nevada High Crime Rate News Media’ offer no mention of the issue among the State’s primary television and print media resources. It also was not an issue discussed in most of the major political contests this year despite the fact that Nevada’s #1 status in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies were all fodder for candidate mud-slinging.

It should be noted that Nevada’s crime rankings are not an artifact of the 2007-09 Recession. The State has been a leader in crime independent of the economic environment. It is unknown if Nevada’s out of control crime issues are effecting tourism because for over half a decade the State has experienced a steady decline in gaming revenues because of increased competition due to Indian gaming in California and other States. Any impact of Nevada’s high crime reputation would be masked by the larger trend; however, as there seems to be little awareness of the State’s crime issues, it is unlikely that it has had an impact…yet.

Nevada’s gaming industry would likely suffer more revenue losses if the crime woes were widely publicized and lower gaming revenues would have a trickle down effect on newspaper and television advertising revenue but, there is no evidence that the local media intentionally avoids the subject to risk offending their advertisers. Gaming also plays a significant role in Nevada politics but, there is no evidence that politicians avoid discussing the issue for fear of offending potential major contributors to their campaigns.

However, the lack of discussion seems to only be feeding the problem. If any effort is being made to turn around Nevada’s position as the Most Dangerous State it is being done without fanfare ….and without success.

NOTES:
(1) – Statistic for 2008 (from crimeinamerica.net)
(2) – Statistic for 2009 – #2 in 2005-08 (from disastercenter.com)
(3) – Statistic for 2006-09 (from disastercenter.com)

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

background checks, Blogging, Blogs, case law, Employee evaluations, Employee privacy, Employer liability, Employment, Employment Law, employment verification, Executive Management, Facebook, HR, Human Resources, Internet, lawsuit, LinkedIn, Management Practices, monitoring employees, New Business World, performance reviews, Privacy, Privacy on the Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Rotary, security, Social Media, Social Networking

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Richmond Embassy Suites: The best at true Hospitality!

01 Friday Oct 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Pride, Public Relations, Random, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, Rotary@105, The Tipping Point, Tom Peters, Travel, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Blogging, Blogs, Customer Loyalty, Embassy Suites, Executive Management, Free Internet, Free WiFi, Hospitality, hotels, HR, Internet, Kathleen Lyons, Management Practices, Motels, New Business World, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Re-Imagine!, Richmond, Richmond VA, Rotary, Starbucks, teamwork, Value-added, Virginia

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

In August I stayed in hotels in seven different cities (Dallas, TX; Bloomington, IL; Chicago,IL; Minneapolis, MN; Norfolk, VA; Richmond, VA; and Virginia Beach, VA..) In a previous post I expressed my displeasure with pay-for-Internet at the Millennium Hotel* in Minneapolis, which was slightly unfair as the hotel was a pleasant, although completely expected, experience. As a people warehouse the Millennium Hotel fits the mold that is typical of most business traveler-type hotels. However, out of the seven hotels of which I was a guest, there was one that made a big impression on me, the Embassy Suites in Richmond, Virginia.

(*Millennium Hotel: Go Away)

The main entrance the Embassy Suites in Richmond

The Embassy Suites hotel in Richmond, Virginia is not a flashy, Vegas-type hotel. From the outside it is a modern, yet modest building tucked back from busy streets; however, access to the Interstate is nearby. Like many hotels it is surrounded by a massive asphalt parking lot; however, the entrance is behind a landscaped island of trees. The great thing about the foliage is that it creates the sense from the outside that this hotel is not just a people warehouse like so many others.

After entering the hotel one doesn’t have to hunt for the Registration Desk as it is positioned in such a way that it oversees the entrance area, but it doesn’t intrude into the path of a guest walking to their room from the parking lot.

The Inner Courtyard

The striking feature of the hotel is the inner courtyard. I have seen this design before, but it was a refreshing change from institutional interior designs of most people warehouses. The open interior gives a community feel to the hotel rather than the impression that you just walked into a U-Store-It facility, as is the feel of most hotels. The interior landscaping and flowing water features create a tropical environment. This hotel was number six for me during my August travels and it was a refreshing change from the five previous corporate institutions of I had visited.

My room was also vastly different from my previous guest experiences. This was a true ‘suite’ and not just a room with a bed. There was a clearly defined living space with a television, desk, couch, and bar area. The bedroom was in the rear of the suite with a door that would allow privacy if two people were in the room and one wanted to watch television or work while the other one slept. The bedroom had a counter with running water and its own television. The bathroom was in the transition area between the living room and the bedroom offering easy access from both rooms. The entire suite is a brilliant design.

Of course the Internet was free (my minimum requirement) and I had no problems making a connection. If needed, I could have easily made the suite my home base. It is a comfortable living and working environment. I would have had no concerns about hosting small meetings in my room. I had everything I needed except for my Starbucks Chai Tea.

The Embassy Suite's Dining/Reception Area

One of my issues with most hotels is the assumption that people don’t want to interact with other people when they stay in a hotel. I’m as reclusive as most, but to visit a city and never come out of my hotel room is what creates that ‘warehouse feeling’.

At the Richmond Embassy Suites the open feel of the courtyard was put to good use by encouraging guests to congregate twice a day for a free manager’s reception each evening and free breakfast each morning. The reception offered adult and non-alcoholic beverages along with a variety of choices of snack items (hors devours.) The breakfast was as good or better than the breakfasts I’ve eaten at eaten at most Sunrise Rotary Clubs. Those who have eaten a breakfast at a Rotary Club may think that may not be saying much, but I typically pay $14 to $15 to eat a Rotary breakfast and this was free. The free gatherings were the most ‘value-added’ service I have experienced in a hotel.

From the few interactions I had with the hotel staff it was obvious that the Chief Executive of this property, Kathleen Lyons, and her staff understood the meaning of the word ‘guest’. I was always treated with respect and a smile. It was apparent that they were pleased that I choose their hotel over the other options in Richmond.

Giving great customer service is not that mysterious, but it requires that everyone from the bottom (no offense intended, Ms. Lyons, but in my world that means you) up to the top (the maintenance and housekeeping staff) must enjoy what they do and enjoy working with people. It was clear that the Embassy Suites in Richmond is not run by ‘management’, but managed through leadership. Bravo to Ms. Lyons and her team!

More Articles

Our Country and History Related

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Is it time to fire yourself?

27 Friday Aug 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Consulting, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Government Regulation, Higher Education, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Rotary, Tom Peters, Universities

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Blogging, Blogs, Employee evaluations, Employment, Executive Management, HR, Management Practices, New Business World, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Tom Peters

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

One thing I have observed in government, hospitals, universities, and small business management is that all of those fields tend to be people collectors. What I mean is those particular fields have a high incidence of people who have passed their expiration date.

Why?

Government, hospitals, and universities tend to: 1) pay their employees well, 2) offer good to great benefits, 3) offer prestigious positions, and 4) have incompetent human resource professionals. A person who lands in any of these three fields may be an excellent performer for several years; however, every human being needs new challenges and after five to seven years they lose the excitement of the job. The problem is that because they have moved up to the top of the pay scale (pay scale: an example of HR incompetence) the person discovers that if they were ever to leave that job they would have to: 1) take a pay cut, 2) risk losing their excellent benefits, and 3) not find as prestigious position as what they have in their comfy current job.

Now that excellent performer is trapped like a caged animal in a job that has no challenges for them. The result is what we have in America today. Government services, hospitals, and universities that are operated by uninspired people who’s most important priority is to go home at the end of the day. And where is the human resources professional? Standing there preaching that all those systems they created that cause employee burnout are absolutely vital for retaining employees. People collectors.

Show me an organization that prides itself on long-term employees and I’ll show you a group of people who shoved innovation and creativity into a file drawer decades before.

So why did I include small business owners in with this unhappy, unproductive group of people?

For small business owners the trap of mediocrity is different, but it has the same result. Initially, a new business owner is excited by the challenge of creating a business from nothing. If they are successful they find the satisfaction of beating the odds, which is like a drug to a business owner. Then comes the fear of losing everything they built. That fear always, always, always leads to becoming conservative. Don’t take chances and don’t risk failure. But it doesn’t stop there.

Eventually, the intelligent business owner realized that his/her business has become stagnant. He/she then tries a series of half measures that stirs the pot but doesn’t make anything new happen. They shake up their sales team, join a peer group (they serve the same function as HR), purchase clever productivity software, or…God forbid, hire a consultant. The result is a temporary change in activity that fails to address the real problem. Fear of failure. Thus, the small business owner becomes a people collector, and they are the one collected. Stuck in a place they can’t get out of and yet, don’t want to be.

My best advice I can give to a small business owner who is stuck in this trap? Fire yourself. Put someone in charge of your company, expect that they will drive it into the ground, and go out and build a new business. At the very least you will no longer live in fear, but you will more alive than you have been in years.

More Articles

Up in the air down in Texas

19 Thursday Aug 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, College, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government Regulation, Higher Education, Lessons of Life, Passionate People, Public Relations, Rotary, Travel, Universities

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Blogging, Blogs, Dallas, Employment, Executive Management, GPS, HR, Management Practices, New Business World, President George Bush Turnpike, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotarians, Social Media, Texas, Toll roads, traveling, turnpike, Value-added, WiFi

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

I’m traveling a lot for my corporate acting/role-playing gigs lately and that has kept me out of my normal routine. During the last two weeks I have been traveling for The American College and playing multiple roles with students in their Master’s degree program.

I love traveling, but hours on a plane, all day seminars, and a quirky Microsoft Outlook/firewall issue (it conflicts with most hotel WiFi) puts me in a position of scrambling to stay up with email. Everything else begins to fall behind and my blog is one of the victims.

I spent three days in Dallas, Texas and I learned that they like to name their roadways after people. They also like toll roads. The problem with naming roads after people is that the President George Bush Turnpike is a lot for the GPS to spit out before it says, “exit right now”.

Lover's Lane in Dallas

Toll roads are not as common in the western United States, but over the past two decades Denver has been joining their eastern sister cities with pay-to-use roads. Both Denver and Dallas are going over to the dark side with cashless toll roads. The concept is that you don’t have stop and pay to use the roadway. Instead you obtain a transmitter that records your car and deducts the toll from your account. Great idea, but it has a wicked ‘gotcha’.

The “gotcha’ is that if you don’t have a transmitter, they just take a picture of your license plate and send the bill to the owner. The problem is that rental car companies are making a killing heaping fees on renters who are caught unaware by the cashless toll roads. I went to downtown Dallas for dinner when I left my GPS took me to a toll road. I didn’t know it was cashless until I was on it and it was too late to exit. GOTCHA!

Dallas is the only city I know that will charge you $2 to drive by the airport. I understand that this road is the access to all the terminals at the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) airport, but it also continues past the airport and if you are using the road to get from south of DFW to north of DFW it will cost you $2. Ironically, I dropped someone off at the airport and it only cost $1 even though I spent longer in on the DFW property.

Thanksgiving Square in Dallas

Despite my negative comments, I liked Dallas. It reminded me of Denver, without the mountains…and warmer…a lot warmer. I spent just enough time in Dallas to get a 10,000 foot view and that is not enough to really know the city. The next time I’m back I will have a better plan to ferret out the cool things to do in Dallas.

I met with the District Governor and District Membership Chair for the Dallas/Fort Worth region and discovered that Rotary clubs in Texas are not that much different from the clubs in northeast California/northern Nevada. We face similar challenges in membership recruitment and the adaptation to using Social Media tools is on a similar pace; however most of their clubs have an existing website. I appreciated the opportunity to meet with them and learn about Rotary Texas style.

I was in Chicago last week and I have trips to Minnesota and Richmond, VA coming up. Might as well make this a travel blog…or not.

More Articles

I mow my lawn because…

17 Tuesday Aug 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Club Leadership, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Higher Education, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Passionate People, Public Relations, Random, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Rotary, The Tipping Point

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Agent Smith, Blogging, Blogs, Club Members, Customer Loyalty, Executive Management, HR, inevitability, lawns, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, movie, mowing, mowing the lawn, Mr. Anderson, nature, Neo, New Business World, overcoming the odds, parenting, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Re-Imagine!, Rotarians, Rotary, Rotary Club, Social Media, The Matrix, Value-added

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Mowing the lawn is a futile task.

It’s like Agent Smith said to Mr. Anderson (Neo) in The Matrix as he held him as the subway train rushed toward them:

Do you hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability. It is the sound of your own death.

That is what my lawn says to me everyday as it smirks and says, “Do you hear that Mr. Kiser? That is the sound of inevitability. It is the sound of nature winning.” It doesn’t stop with the grass. Everyday we face the battle against the march of time. We live in a reality that will always have the last word…and last laugh. We cannot win….

: Agent Smith: The sound of inevitability

…but I don’t see it that way.

I mow my lawn and I do it as an act of defiance. Yes, it is going to grow back, and yes, I could spend my time some other way than weekly harvesting my valueless grass, but that would be giving up.

We can have small victories. We can defy the odds and make nature work for her ‘inevitability’. Yes, the grass will grow, but look at my lawn and today… it didn’t win. The day belongs to me and my lawnmower. Take your inevitability and chew on it, Mother Nature, because today I own you.

In the past few years I have noticed that many people have given in to Agent Smith. They see only the inevitability. Everything will only lead to failure, so why try? The only problem is that everything great that humans have accomplished have been done by defying inevitability. bridges, tunnels, interstate highways, monuments, dams, water systems, sewer systems, powerlines,….the list goes on. It is in our nature to defy nature…and win….even if it is only for today.

Whether it is the start of a new school year, greeting the 833rd customer of the day, inviting the 18th prospective new member when the first 17 didn’t join, planning the fundraiser…again, walking around and talking to the employees for the third time today, or convincing someone that a new creative idea really can work, we beat the odds and make inevitability wait and that’s why we exist.

Beating inevitability

So I will continue to mow my lawn…until Alexander is old enough to do it.

More Articles

Rogue Flight Attendant shows his arrogance, Airlines dislike for customers

16 Monday Aug 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government Regulation, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Rotary, Travel, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Air travel, airline rules, Airlines, avionics, bad behavior, Blogging, Blogs, cell phones, Customer Loyalty, drama queen, electronic devices, Employment, FAA, flight attendant, hero, HR, jetBlue, Management Practices, New Business World, petty behavior, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Southwest Airlines, Steven Slater

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Last week Steven Slater was anointed as the working person’s hero by CNN and based on Internet response it would seem that most admire this jetBlue flight attendant and his dramatic act of quitting his job over the intercom, grabbing two beers, opening the plane door, inflating the emergency escape slide, and leaping into history. His behavior was allegedly in response to a passenger that refused to listen to his order to sit down as the plane taxied to the gate, and it has somehow elevated Slater to fame and offers of mega-financial deals.

Yet, the facts indicate that he is anything but heroic, and more accurately described as an arrogant, customer-loathing, self-obsessed man who betrayed the passengers on his plane and showed how control-obsessed some flight attendants have become in putting their petty desires over customer service.

Steven Slater - It's all about him

First, the facts of the alleged incident that supposedly drove him to his tantrum are in dispute. He claims that while the plane was taxiing to the gate a passenger stood up to get his bag and that while confronting the passenger the bag came down and hit him in the head. Yet, passengers claim the injury to his head was there earlier in the flight and no one can validate his fight with a passenger. By his own admission, Slater said he has thought about doing this act for 20 years.

Also, when Slater opened the starboard door and blew the slide, the plane was at the gate with the jetway in place. If the port side external door was not open, it could have been easily opened and he could have exited without the big show that took a plane out of service….but it wouldn’t have been as dramatic.

I do not doubt that there was some incident, but it seems that the facts according to Steven Slater don’t quite match the story. If a passenger stood up and began getting his bags before the plane had made a complete stop then that passenger was certainly in the wrong, but here is the catch, flight attendants have almost unlimited authority and if there was a major issue Slater only had to report the incident and the passenger would be spending some quality time with the New York Police. The passenger has no such power over the flight attendants, so why would Steven Slater portray himself as some beaten down victim at the mercy of a passenger?

Note that Steven Slater’s drama not only disrupted and punished the passengers on his flight, but his act also affected the passengers waiting to board that plane when it left New York. The plane had to be taken out of service leaving hundreds of people stranded. Slater’s co-workers were left to clean up his mess and he is a hero? To whom? What possible positive example does this petty, childish, little boy set for anyone? That bad behavior is rewarded?

Of course there are problem passengers. I have witnessed people who are rude, offensive, and ignorant of everyone around them. I will not defend these people, but I will say that most passengers are well-behaved even when they are dealing with a ground staff or flight crew that has belittled and/or humiliated them.

What I see more often on planes is not rude passengers, but rude flight crews that revel in power over their customers. No where in the business world do employees hold more power than flight attendants have over their passengers. Bizarre rules that have no meaning are enforced beyond common sense.

My favorite rule is turning off all electronic devices. Most Southwest flight attendants use the phrase, “..anything with an on/off switch must be completely turned off.” The rationale is that electronic devices will interfere with the plane’s ‘sensitive’ avionics, which is not true. Every urban area is blanketed with cell phone towers, microwave towers, and millions of electronic devices that transmit electromagnetic signals. Below 10,000 feet are electromagnetic waves that are far more powerful than anything a passenger can carry on a plane. If there were a danger of electronic interference it is more likely to come from external signals, rather than internal signals. In addition, the FAA and the airlines have yet to re-create an avionics problem that they could trace back to a mobile phone or an passenger’s electronic device. However, every airline enforces these rules even though they are only FAA advisories, NOT requirements.

The mix of petty rules and petty flight attendants, along with airlines that see passengers as the evil that they must deal with in order to gain a better dividend for their investor has created an abusive situation in the skies and on the ground. It’s not an excuse but passengers are reacting to the way they are being treated. I don’t condone bad behavior by passengers, but I’ll be damned if some drama queen* should be glorified for being the worst customer representative in an industry that hates their customer but still wants their money.

(*I know Steven Slater is openly gay and I am not slamming gays with the ‘drama queen’ remark. In theatre, and in life, there are drama queens, both male and female, and if the shoe fits…)

More Articles

Pay It Middle: The Balance between Too Much and Too Little Compensation

01 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Communication, Consulting, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Abraham Maslow, Blogs, Compensation, Employment, HR, Management Practices, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, New Business World, Pay for Performance, performance reviews, Public Image, Re-Imagine!, Rotary

by Paul Kiser [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Yesterday I wrote an article about research that shows that too much compensation actually makes performance worse. A fellow Rotarian (thanks Skip!) sent me a link to a great video by RSA Animate that illustrates the issue and the research. If you haven’t seen it take a look:

Dan Pink: Drive and Purpose YouTube Video

Paul Kiser - CEO 2020 Enterprise Technologies

The article is here: (Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poor Performance)

But the question is why does mega pay negatively impact performance? Here’s my theory.

The Psychology of Making Too Much Money – Barney and the Manna ATM
A man named Barney goes to withdraw $500 from his local ATM. Instead he is given $5,000. When Barney checks his balance it shows that no money was withdrawn from his account. He could go to the bank and let them know that he thinks the ATM has made a mistake but he doesn’t. Initially he is afraid that someone will discover the mistake and take the money away, but no one says anything and eventually Barney’s fear eases. Each week he goes back to the same ATM for another withdrawal and the same thing occurs. He tries other ATM’s, but he learns that it is just this one that gives him money for nothing. Soon he has built a life around getting $5,000 every week from this ATM. His fear has now subsided, but he feels a little guilty, but also a little evil.

One evening Barney is in a rush for the money and pushes a woman out-of-the-way to make his transaction. The woman is irritated but stands to the side while Barney enters in the information. When the money comes out she notices that he received $5,000 but only requested $500. She points this out to him and he denies it. She knows what she saw and she won’t be convinced. Barney offers to give her half of the money and she refuses the offer. She says she is going to tell the bank….What will Barney do to keep his lifestyle?

When examining behavior by executives and managers in the banking crisis of 2007-09, the answer to that question: “What will a man do to keep his lifestyle?” (I’m not being sexist, just accurate) is answered by the unethical business decisions that led to massive financial failures in 2008-09. Pay might purchase a person’s talents for an organization, but at a certain point, too much compensation begins to purchase the person’s ethical compass. Good decision-making is replaced by self-preservation and the future of the business is sacrificed for the financials of the current quarter.

The lesson is that too much compensation becomes a trap that will often lead to unethical decisions. Mega pay not only doesn’t improve performance, it lures executives to the dark side.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The Psychology of Making Too Little Money – Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
The other side of the issue is paying too little. In 1943, a researcher named Abraham Maslow published a paper titled: A Theory of Human Motivation. The work was based on examining successful people and their living situations. From his research he concluded that there is a Hierarchy of Needs that must be met in steps, with each step supporting the next level.

In Maslow’s paper he proposes that humans must meet their basic survival needs that contribute to sustaining life as the base level of life; however, security and safety needs are the next level. All levels above that (Belonging, Esteem, and finally, Self-Actualization) are dependent on the needs of the first two levels being met.

This is the key. Employers that fail to compensate their team to the point of a living wage should expect their staff to be in a constant state of crisis and that means they cannot expect these employees to be creative and innovative in dealing with the common issues that might arise with the customer. An underpaid employee will be in a constant state of personal crisis that will lead to many issues including reliability, focus, and attitude.

The question is how much is a living wage? That takes an individual examination of the job, the market, and the economy of the region. As the video suggests, you should pay enough to take money off the table as an issue.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poorer Performance

31 Monday May 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Branding, Customer Relations, Human Resources, Management Practices, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Blogging, Dan Pink, Employee evaluations, Employment, Executive Compensation, Executive Pay, HR, job standards, LinkedIn, Management Practices, MIT, New Business World, performance reviews, Public Image, Publicity, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Value-added, YouTube

by Paul Kiser [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser - CEO 2020 Enterprise Technologies

Mega executive pay and bonuses do not work. Mega executive pay and bonuses do not work. Mega executive pay and bonues do not work. Got it? No? Then watch this RSA Animate video by theRSAorg posted on YouTube featuring Dan Pink discussing pay and motivation:

Dan Pink: Drive and Purpose YouTube Video

In research and the real world the idea that mega pay makes for mega profit has been proven wrong over and over, yet we still have corporate directors handing out millions of dollars to single individuals…even when that person has led the company to failure. Why? Let’s go back to cognitive dissonance.

We are conditioned to believe that the more we pay, the better the quality. That is drilled into us. Value is determined by how much money we pay for a product or service. How could it possibly be different in paying an executive? So when MIT research, or Goldman Sachs, or BP, or Massey Energy, or General Motors , or Washington Mutual, or Merrill Lynch (the list goes on) demonstrate that mega pay does not equal mega performance…or even good performance, then people overlook the evidence and begin to use irrational logic to justify mega executive pay. Earlier in May, Bill Virgin wrote a piece for The News Tribune in Tacoma, WA to justify corporate exec pay where he said:

“Corporate CEOs have employees, labor unions, investors, customers and government regulators to worry about.”

One might think that CEO’s were alone on a white horse fighting off evil with a shiny silver sword according to Mr. Virgin. The fact is that often the workers under the CEO have a much more stressful environment and in some cases lives hang in the balance, so the CEO’s typical responsibilities fail to be a good reason to pay them hundreds of times more than the workers under them.

The surprise is how little is written in support of mega pay for executives. I believe this is due to the people who make the decision (corporate directors) having no reason to adopt executive pay policies that are based in common sense and every reason to maintain the status quo, but they also have no reason to justify their reasons to anyone. Massive pay means the appearance of importance and if you are the person handing out the massive pay you are even more important. From a corporate director’s boardroom chair the investors aren’t revolting and the customers are still buying, and Republicans are still protecting the practice, so there is no issue to discuss publicly.

But the practice has to change. Not only is it ineffective, it is immoral. Many years ago I worked in a retail store and I learned that the corporate CEO was making $4 million per year and each store was only making an average of less than $250,000 net profit per year. That meant that the work of thousands of employees in over 16 stores were dedicated to providing the salary of one person…and I can tell you, he wasn’t worth it.

If you watched the Dan Pink video you’ve learned that human motivation is based on many factors. I think the important thing to remember is that ‘satisfaction‘ is the most fleeting of all our emotions. Money is junk food in the world of motivation and performance. Too much just makes you sick.

More blogs

Relationships and Thin Slicing: Why the Other Person Knows What You’re Really Thinking

28 Friday May 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Book Review, Branding, Communication, Customer Relations, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, parenting, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Blink, Blogs, Club Members, Employee evaluations, Employee privacy, Employment, Four-Way Test, HR, job standards, John Gottman, Malcolm Gladwell, Management Practices, Membership Retention, negative relationships, New Business World, performance reviews, positive relationships, Public Image, Public Relations, Rotarians, Rotary, Rotary Club, Rotary District 5190, Rotary International, Social Media, Social Networking, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Thin-slicing

by Paul Kiser [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

You’ve been warned about ‘this person’ and now you’re being introduced to them. You smile and shake his hand and say, “nice to meet you.” Visibly, you are polite and friendly; however, inside your hoping to be able to move on because even though you’ve never met him before you are preconditioned to not like him. The introduction ends and you move on believing that went things went smoothly. He walks away knowing that you dislike him and he begins to form a negative impression of you. In less than five seconds you have cemented a negative relationship…and you didn’t even know it. What happened?

Malcolm Gladwell

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, it is called it thin-slicing and it is based on solid research. Gladwell uses many examples of how the human brain picks up seemingly unseen and unheard clues and can accurately identify what is going on in a given situation. In one example, researcher John Gottman and his team coded conversations between married couples using 14 emotional identifiers (1=contempt, 2=anger, etc.) and found that they could accurately predict whether or not the couple was heading for a divorce by the subtle clues that betrayed the inner thoughts and attitudes of each person. Most of these signals lasted a second or less, but the signal clearly indicated the inner feelings of the person and the pattern of their relationship.

Gladwell argues that in a thin-slice experience we usually do not know what we know, nor why we know it, but the evidence is conclusive, we do know it. It is often described as a ‘feeling’ and people usually cannot explain it to others, so it is usually dismissed as being oversensitive. Gladwell‘s research suggests that the feeling is real and that our unconscious mind is the source of the analysis that creates a tangible, and accurate feeling and/or assessment of the situation.

: Conversations Are Never Just Casual

Based on the information in Blink one can conclude that when someone has a dislike for someone, or when people discuss someone else behind their back, the attitudes felt or expressed privately will be exposed in subtle hints the next time we meet the subject of the gossip. We are taught as children to not gossip about others, which was a valuable lesson based on what we now know; however, in the business world people often discuss work performance of subordinates with their peers or superiors. Those discussions then shape our attitudes about the subordinate, which are then revealed in our next interaction with the worker. The same can be said of any relationship, whether it be a superior/subordinate, peer/peer, Club member/member, parent/child, spouse/spouse, or any interaction between two people. Simply put, strong attitudes and opinions about another person can and will be read by that person at the next meeting.

But what is worse is once a negative relationship is formed it is almost impossible to revert it to a positive relationship. Gladwell says that if a person has contempt or other negative attitudes towards someone, even a kind or reconciliatory gesture will be misread as manipulation or motivated by a hidden agenda. That idea is reinforced by the theory of cognitive dissonance, which suggests that once we have an opinion or belief about something we will reject evidence that contradicts our opinion or belief and will even go so far as to manufacture evidence or examples to support our version of the truth.

Do We Have to Like Everyone?
Certainly we don’t have to have a positive relationship with everyone, but negative relationships tend to expend more of our energy and time. This is especially true for people in positions of leadership. Consider the time spent on emails, meetings, phone calls, and emotional stress that involve interactions with people who we have an adversarial relationship versus the support and positive reinforcement we receive through friendly relationships. It is obvious that a negative relationship that is based on our preconditioning to dislike them is not only counterproductive, but also an unnecessary waste of time and emotion.

The first step in avoiding the downward spiral of negative relationships is to recognize that our internal dislike for someone is not hidden from that person. Our actions, behaviors, and responses will be picked up and will, in turn, dictate their response to us. Gossip, whether it is causally done with friends, or professionally sanctioned as part of ‘assessment’ of subordinates is dangerous to our relationship with that person and will ultimately make our life more difficult. Most of us were taught at some point to never say anything about anyone unless you are prepared to say it to their face….it is a good rule in the home, at work, or anywhere else.

Rotary's Four-Way Test

Rotary has a Four-Way Test that is a guide to any relationship. It is meant to take Rotarians to a higher standard in business and in life. The ‘test’ is as follows:

First, is it the Truth?
Second, is it fair to all concerned?
Third, will it build goodwill and better friendships?
Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Great words that can help us to build great relationships…even when sliced thin.

More articles

Social Media 2020: Keep it Personal

19 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Human Resources, Information Technology, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Tom Peters

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Bloggers, Blogging, Blogs, Employee privacy, Employment, Facebook, HR, LinkedIn, Management Practices, Marketing Yourself, New Business World, Public Image, Re-Imagine!, Rotarians, Rotary, Social Media, Social Networking, Tom Peters, Twitter

by Paul Kiser

Part of the challenge in learning new things is getting enough information until you can hit that magic ‘A-HA!’ moment when the information starts falling into place. Most of my ‘A-HA!’ moments occur when listening to someone who has insight on the topic AND they can frame the information in such a way that it makes everything else I’ve learned fall into place.

For over 20 years many of my A-HA! moments have come after reading Tom Peters, but recently my A-HA! moments on Social Media have come from listening to people like Dr. Bret Simmons.

(www.bretlsimmons.com)

Dr. Bret Simmons http://www.bretlsimmons.com

He is well ahead of me on the learning curve of Social Media, but I am finding my course in the digital jungle easier by the path he is blazing for the rest of us common fools. He has a unique perspective that I appreciate, and it doesn’t hurt that we both share a mutual distaste for archaic human and public relations management practices.

A few months ago I listened to him talk to a group of young professionals. During the talk he caused an A-HA moment for me. He said, “use your name” in the Social Media arena. That seems terribly simple, but it is a foreign concept to many. He went on to say that the message that a person conveys to him by not using their real name is that they don’t value him enough to share his or her identity.

(Listen to Dr. Bret Simmons talk about Personal Branding)

I go farther than Dr. Bret, because when someone doesn’t use their own name..full name..I wonder what they are hiding. I can certainly understand situations where using a full first and last name may be a personal security issue; however, if you’re in the business world and you want to build your individual brand then you must use your real name.

My father’s generation expected to work for one or two employers during their career. In the past 40 years that concept has died. What has replaced it is an attitude by employers of a one-way contract. They want the employee to pledge complete loyalty, but in return they have no obligation of offering the employee job security. Building your personal brand is the only job security you have in today’s market.

In today’s environment your name should be the address for your website, the title of your blog, and identify you on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Your resume is not what you have on paper, it is what you have out on the Internet and the quicker you accept that fact, the faster you can start working on developing your public image and engage in the today’s market.

Does that mean you risk embarrassing yourself? YES! Get over it. With each embarrassment you will become a little better at self-monitoring, both online and face to face. We are human beings and if you don’t get a job because of something you said two years ago then you have dodged a bullet. Any employer who is looking for the perfect employee is going to be staffed with people who don’t risk failure and that is not the company to be associated with in today’s world.

You owe it to yourself and the rest of the world to create your own personal brand. If you don’t then expect your tag line to be, “would you like fries with that, sir?”

Other Blogs about Social Media and Public Relations

Social Media 2020: Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010

13 Tuesday Apr 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Human Resources, Information Technology, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Tom Peters

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Book, Facebook, HR, LinkedIn, Management Practices, New Business World, Public Image, Publicity, Social Media, Social Networking, Tom Peters, Twitter

A lot has changed in the last nine years in regard to the world of Public Relations. In Part One I compare the fable presented in the Late 1990’s book, Who Moved My Cheese by Spencer Johnson to the reaction towards today’s new world of Social Media. In Part Two of this series I compare how we looked at Public Relations in 2001 versus how we look at it today.

Paul Kiser

(Read Part One of this series – Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?)

Public Relations 2001: The Power of Third-Party Media

In 2001, Public Relations was more distinct. A person could easily identify the roles and responsibilities. Publicity was defined as earning the attention of third-party media of an organization through free media channels. Promotion described the use of paid third-party media advertising (newspaper, radio, TV, phone book, mail, etc.) to gain public attention. It was easier to define Public Relations in 2001 because it consisted of three distinct roles: 1) The organization seeking publicity/promotion, 2) the third-party media, and 3) the target audience.

Of the three roles, the third-party media was considered a deity. The goal of PR professionals (and non-professionals) was to gain favorable attention of those key people in the third-party media so that they would talk about you to their audience. You could buy your way into the hearts and minds of the media, but the goal was to seduce the media and gain their favor. Journalists, newspaper editors, television news directors, and other media professionals had the power to make or break the public image of company and/or influence customers purchasing habits. The people in the media were the gatekeepers to the public.

In 2001, the Internet was not new, but it was still primarily a place of email and websites. PR professionals were promoting websites as another tool in their arsenal to reach the public, but many organizations still had their doubts about the importance of how a website could increase their business. A few could see beyond the existing uses of the Internet. Some of those gifted few might have imagined a world where junk mail and the yellow pages would become obsolete, but the idea of masses of people in continuous connection to each other was hard to fathom by almost everyone, especially PR professionals.

The New Cheese: The Individual

Tom Peters - author of Re-Imagine! New Business Excellence in a Disruptive World

One person who saw something brewing in the early part of the new millennium was Tom Peters. In his 2003 book, Re-Imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age, he devoted a chapter to Individual Branding. He suggested a future where the skills and experience of the individual would be key to ‘New Business’. A world where a person isn’t swallowed up as a commodity in the belly of a corporation, but rather as an independent professional that companies would compete to have on their team.

(Go to Tom Peters Re-Imagine! website)

In 2003, it seemed hard to imagine how an individual could become relevant in a business world that often captured employees and then made them sign non-disclosure, non-compete, we-own-you agreements. The ability for someone to market themselves was severely restricted, if not, banned outright by the corporation that made no promises of job security, but demanded total loyalty.

Perhaps Peters could see that the blogging sites of 2001-03 were signaling a new age of individualism; perhaps there were trends in place that Peters could project in the future; or perhaps (and this is my theory) that Peters has the ability to travel in time; but with the development and massive growth of Social Interactive Media in the last five years, Peters accurately predicted a new world of branding of the individual that is now a reality.

The Individual Trumps False Corporate and Media Gods

The rapid growth of Facebook and Twitter are two of the significant factors that changed the world of Public Relations. Facebook made Social Media acceptable to millions. Social Media allowed an individual to connect with hundreds of other people without the approval or denial of a third-party media deity. Ideas, opinions, and knowledge were now being shared and it all bypassed the traditional gatekeepers. It is hard to say what was the critical mass flash point that pushed Social Media into the mainstream, but once Facebook exceeded 100 million users there was no doubt that the Age of the Individual had dawned.

Twitter’s contribution to the age of the individual was two-fold. The 140 character limitation for Twitter messages created a need to link to blogs, articles, and websites to fully convey new information and ideas; therefore, the practice of embedding links into a Tweet became commonplace. That spurred a new connectivity of an individual’s ideas and opinions to the rest of the world. Prior to Twitter, a blog was primarily found via a Google search, but a Tweet brought more attention to the general public without relying on a deliberate search, AND, the Tweet put new information out to an audience that was already interested in the topic.

The second impact of Twitter was a continuous flow of connectivity. As a Social Media tool it put people in touch with each other 24/7/365. While other Social Media tools could make a similar claim, Twitter encouraged users to stay connected and placed a priority on real-time interaction. This was a pace of communication that corporations, with layers of control and approval, were not equipped to handle. The corporate practice of running every statement or concept by a Public Relations professional before it goes public was not possible in the world of real-time information. Twitter was designed for communication of individuals, not corporations, which is exactly the way users wanted it.

A Different Flavor of Cheese

Nobody will deny that Public Relations is still not a viable function in today’s world, but the old concept of the worship of third-party media like newspapers has been lost. Discussing the Internet and Social Media when a newspaper professional is in the room is like discussing a new girlfriend in front of someone who used to date her and got dumped. Public Relations is no longer an effort to make the best possible impression with the public as it is about being genuine. Users of Social Media can spot a fake PR effort and anything that smacks of a corporate sell job is rejected…permanently.

To survive in a world of ‘Social Media Relations,’ corporations no longer can hide behind the perfect façade of Public Relations. A business will be judged by the sum of its individuals and that means less control and manipulation of its employees. The successful company will unshackle its people to dazzle its customers with their expertise of the business, and their competitors will tremble in fear. It’s a new world, but not for those who don’t adapt and adopt.

Tom Peters world of New Business is here and Public Relations can no longer hide behind the curtain in New Oz.

Other Blogs on Social Media and Public Relations

Publishing Industry to End 2012

Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?

Fear of Public Relations

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!

Does Anybody Really Understand PR?

Management by Coup 2: Eliminate Job Standards and Job Descriptions

24 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Human Resources, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Random, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Tom Peters

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

employee morale, HR, job descriptions, job standards, performance standards

Being the Boss is more than wearing a suit and looking important

by Paul Kiser

It seems like a very rational idea. Create job (or performance) standards for every employee that dictate their responsibilities and define the expectations (or for performance standards, defines ‘does not meet’, ‘meets’, or ‘exceeds’) for all aspects of every job. That is the only way an employee knows what is expected of them and the only way a manager can “objectively” measure performance.

Very rational…very, very rational….

News Flash: We don’t live in a rational, sterile world where we can put down on a piece of paper an adequate description of intangible concepts like:

Taking care of the customer.
Thinking outside of the box.
Anticipating unforseen problems

Paul Kiser - CEO - 2020 Enterprise Technologies, inc.

I used to think that I could write objective performance standards that covered the intangibles of the business world, but it is really like the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox. The more objective a set of performance standards, the more impossible it is to accurately and appropriately measure. Likewise, the more subjective the performance standards, the less accurate the measurement tools and the more a manager’s personality, mood, bias, etc. will influence an employee’s score.

In my first Management by Coup blog I proposed that employee evaluations could and should be eliminated. Now I want to go further and propose that performance standards are also unnecessary….But wait there’s more.

I propose that companies can also eliminate job descriptions as well.

Someone is saying “You CAN’T do that!! Job Descriptions are required by LAW, you idiot!!!” To that I say, BS. There is no Federal mandate for an employer to have a job description.

There are some caveats to this statement:

In certain situations (government contracts, state government positions, etc.) job descriptions are required.
Job descriptions are also often subpoenaed as evidence in an employee relations case.
If you have job skills, educational requirements, licensing, etc., then that needs to be listed in some type of job description.

However, all the other things in a job description (job duties, reporting to, etc.) are all optional. So maybe you can’t realistically eliminate a job description, but you can slice it down to the bare bones, and I recommend doing so. Why?

First, anything a company puts in a job description can and will be held against them. Like employee evaluations, the job description is often more useful to the employee’s lawyer than it is to the employee or the employer.

Second, like performance standards, job descriptions can’t possibly describe everything an employee does 2080 hours a year. For this reason almost every job descriptions has the phrase, “Other duties as assigned,” in it. So why not have a one line job description: “Other duties as assigned” and skip the hours wasted on writing and re-writing job duties?

Third, management is about talking to your staff. When a piece of paper is more critical to your company than talking to the employee on a regular and frequent basis, then that is the moment to close up the business and let your competitors take over the market.

Here’s a test. Write a job description for the expectations you have of your child (if you don’t have a child, try a pet, or your significant other). Then at the end of a week measure how well the job description improved your relationship and if the job description had any value over just not writing it up in the first place.

I rest my case.

Other Blogs

Playing the Whole Game

15 Monday Mar 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Human Resources, Information Technology, Management Practices, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Employee evaluations, HR, Ohio State, performance reviews, Tom Peters

I’m not a big sports fan. I tend to skim through games and watch for a few minutes, but I don’t live for sports. Still, I watch enough to qualify for my chromosomes and I do understand the strategies used in most sports.

On Saturday I caught bits of the Ohio State vs. Illinois basketball game. It was a close game toward the end and Ohio St. did something that I really like…they played the whole game. Twice Ohio State was behind by two points and they had several seconds left. If they scored too soon it would give Illinois the opportunity bring the ball back down court and win the game.

The strategy many teams have in this situation is to stall and go for the last shot. But Ohio State didn’t follow the traditional strategy. They shot quickly and gave Illinois the opportunity to win. The irony is that Illinois did play for the last shot and in both situations they failed. In the end Ohio State won.

I was happy for two reasons. First, I was happy to see Illinois lose because the Illini (players and fans) are known for their trash talk. They think it is part of the game. The second reason is Ohio State won by playing the entire game. They didn’t stall and try to win in a last second shot for victory. They tied the game and then played defense.

Go Ohio State!

I’ve never understood the logic of the stall tactic. I know the only thing that counts is the score when the clock reads 00:00, but the measure of a team is what they can do for the whole game, not just up to the final 40 seconds and then stop playing until the last three seconds. What type of message does that send?

The Whole Game in Business
I see this attitude creep over into the business world. I was once told about a manager for a major package delivery company. He had a budget for labor and equipment. The manager would get a significant bonus if he was under budget on his labor and equipment, so he deliberately over worked his salaried supervisors, worked understaffed with his hourly employees, and didn’t purchase the needed equipment for the staff to do their jobs. He ‘won the game’ and got his bonus, but everyone hated working for him.

Some might think that this misuse of people and resources will eventually be discovered. It is not. Employees don’t like ratting on their boss because management often fails to act in situations where the manager is a success on paper and sometimes it is the employee that suffers for speaking out. To my knowledge this manager is still in his position and nothing has changed in five years or more. He might have even been promoted by now.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t like most performance evaluation tools. They may be based on ‘quantifiable’ measurements, but quantifying doesn’t equate to fairness. I don’t oppose goal setting, but business is and should be a dynamic process. Goals and performance measures make bean counters happy, but the can often be manipulated to work contrary to the needs of the employees and/or customers.

The focus of any business should be to play the whole game and not work for the score at the end of the ‘quarter’. This involves Management By Walking Around (MBWA) and letting small groups in the company experiment with new ideas (Skunk Works). If this sounds like old Tom Peters stuff, it is, but it’s GOOD old Tom Peters stuff.

Tom Peters

I read Tom Peters first book, In Search of Excellence, soon after it was published in 1982, and I have been a disciple of his rants for over 25 years. Of course, you don’t win many corporate popularity contests when you’re guiding principles are reflected by a rejection of the status quo, but I’ve yet to be proven wrong….just fired or let go. I’ve been dusting off some of his books and scanning them again. I believe that almost everything a business person needs to be successful can be found in Tom Peters writings.

We’re facing a new business environment and it’s time we rejected the habits we fell into during the last 10 years. We can start by going back to the basic question: What does the customer need and how can we provide what they want, before they want it, and better than they expect? Get that question right and everything else is easy.

Go Ohio State!

Management by Coup 1: Eliminate Employee Evaluations

11 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Human Resources, Management Practices, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Tom Peters

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Employee evaluations, HR, job standards, performance reviews, Tom Peters

by Paul Kiser

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

I have worked many years in Human Resources and at one time my job was to help managers write employee job standards and performance evaluation tools. I would like to now publicly apologize for playing a role in the dark side of management.

HR people can give you dozens of reasons why employee evaluations are absolutely necessary. You need to give the employee feedback, you need to let the employee know your expectations, evaluations are documentation of the employee performance, documentation is needed for disciplinary actions, blah, blah, blah, blah…it’s all BS. Here are four myths about employee evaluations:

Myth #1: Employees need periodic feedback
WRONG! Employees need constant feedback. Respectable HR people will tell you that there should be nothing discussed during the employee evaluation that they were not already aware of; however, in actual practice the employee evaluation is the moment many managers use the GOTCHA Management Technique by dredging up hearsay and listing new expectations that the employee has never heard before the evaluation.

Tom Peters discussed a technique known as MBWA or Management by Walking Around. The basic idea is the manager stops wasting time sitting in an office and spends it by interacting with his or her employees and customers. This brilliant 21st Century management technique was first discussed in the book, In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman in 1982! For over 25 years managers have been told to get out of her or his office to manage and yet some people still don’t get it.

Myth #2: Evaluations are needed to support disciplinary action
While some managers use the evaluation as a GOTCHA moment, others will minimize a negative performance issue in order to maintain a positive working relationship; therefore, an employee’s evaluation often fails to support disciplinary action taken against them. Time after time an employee’s lawyer seizes on a lack of evidence in the employee’s evaluation to justify disciplinary action by the employer. A manager is better off having written documentation of a problem at the time of the incident rather than trying to use the evaluation to document an issue regarding the employee’s performance.

Myth #3: Evaluations are needed to determine pay increases.
Pay increases need to be fair and equitable, but many organizations find that withholding a pay increase based on performance causes more potential legal problems than is solves, and punishment destroys employee morale rather than improves an individual’s performance. Pay for performance was a novel idea that never delivered on the promises of improved productivity by the HR department.

Myth #4: If a manager is not required to do periodic employee evaluations they will never give the employee the information they need to excel at their job.
An evaluation does not a good manager make! If a manager is not giving constant feedback to their team, then what good are they?

Life Without Evaluations
I know it seems unthinkable for some, but evaluations are an HR imposed control system that is completely unnecessary. In fact, evaluations do more harm to teamwork because they create a formal “Us vs Them” situation between the manager and the worker. Evaluations can make a manager feel superior and that is not a good foundations for positive employee relations.

Other Blogs

Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit

21 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Club Leadership, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Rotary@105, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Attrition, Blogging, Blogs, Club Members, Customer Loyalty, Employee evaluations, Employment, Executive Management, exit interviews, HR, Management Practices, Membership Retention, New Business World, Public Relations, quitting, retention, Rotarians, Rotary, Rotary Club, Value-added, volunteer organizations

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Why Did John Quit?
In my years in management, human resources, and service club involvement I have watched many people leave organizations and periodically someone in the organization starts throwing around the ‘R’ word: Retention. What follows are committee meetings, calls for surveys, and finger-pointing. The search usually turns up discovery of a plausible single cause for the problem based upon limited evidence, followed by a shrug of shoulders because the alledged cause is almost always determined to be a reason that is out of control of the organization.

Finding the real reason for attrition for any organization is elusive because there is almost never just one reason for someone to quit. The decision to quit is typically after the person has accumulated multiple ‘dissatisfiers‘ or negative experiences that finally caused the person to make a change by leaving. Dissatisfiers can be issues about pay, benefits, or other tangible reasons; however, most negative experiences are intangible acts that weaken (or fail to strengthen) a person’s perception of belonging to the organization.

A Dissatisfier may be something small, like a person not getting thanked for his or her contribution to a special project, or something more significant, like a lack of a desired promotion. As each Dissatisfier is added the person gets closer to the decision that the organization is not meeting his or her needs.

While a group or organization may be unaware of their actions that cause a Dissatisfier for an individual, people often consciously use Dissatisfiers to drive away a member or employee from a group because it is a subtle form of discrimination that is difficult to detect and easy to blame the victim as being overly sensitive. We learn this tactic at a young age and often as a byproduct of sibling rivalry when one child torments another by subtlety annoying them until they react violently. In adults, the behavior is rarely as overt, nor does it result in violence, but can be very effective in weeding out diversity in the group.

When the Dissatisfiers are not the result of a conscious effort against a person, but rather the failure to include the person, the result can be the same. Over time the person may ultimately decide to quit for a better opportunity, or, in the case of a volunteer organization, leave for no other opportunity.

The Perfect Environment to Study Dissatisfiers
Volunteer organizations are an ideal environment to study the effect of Dissatisfiers because the issue of compensation and/or benefits (tangible rewards) can be ruled out as factors for attrition. While some may conclude that because there is no tangible rewards for a volunteer, his or her involvement is tenuous all the time; however, often an individual has a deeper commitment to a volunteer organization simply because they are involved for more meaningful reasons. That reason may be as simple as wanting to be a part of an organization that seeks to do good, but for many people who need is often more powerful than monetary gain.

Members of a volunteer organization should feel that the work they perform not only gives them a sense of accomplishment; but also gives them a sense of worth, belonging (or friendship) and pride. For a member to leave that organization means that the group failed to provide or connect the member to the key rewards of volunteer service. Attrition in a volunteer organization is often blamed on a single external factor (a bad economy) or the person (not in the organization for the right reasons) rather than examine the Dissatisfiers that they might have been able to address that would have retained that member.

To improve retention organizations need to stop looking for the single factor for attrition, and start looking for the list of Dissatisfiers that led to the decision to quit. In volunteer organizations, a member’s involvement is to fill a need of belonging and attrition can only be attributed to internal Dissatisfiers, not external factors.

More Articles

@laurenboebert I'm so proud of you Lauren. Here you are, a high school failure and you know what today's date is...bravo. 5 days ago
FACT: @laurenboebert was a high school dropout who just received her GED last year. Now she thinks she's an expert… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 month ago
Trump: "We will be back in some form..." Who does he think he is? Voldemort? https://t.co/hU7QS14gM3 1 month ago
T-Minus 12 days, 9 hours, and 20 minutes to the 50th Anniversary of the launch of Apollo 14, our return to flight a… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 month ago
Did anyone else note that Mike Pence basically said he was not Presidential material? He's refusing to invoke the 2… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 month ago

PAULx

~ Tenet insanabile multos scribendi cacoethes

Tag Archives: HR

Rapid HR Hiring Process Required In Professional Environment

Challenges to Hiring Highly Skilled Workers

What Human Resources is Required to Do

Checking References BS

Nevada Best Kept Secret: #1 in Crime

Richmond Embassy Suites: The best at true Hospitality!

Is it time to fire yourself?

Rogue Flight Attendant shows his arrogance, Airlines dislike for customers

Management by Coup 2: Eliminate Job Standards and Job Descriptions

Management by Coup 1: Eliminate Employee Evaluations