Here Comes the Hammer

A smirky demeanor.  An eagerness to deliver bad news.  A willingness to be the bad guy.  It’s the callousness that might accompany the final step of employment for an individual.  Have you seen it?  Are you guilty of being this person?

From a humanistic standpoint, there is satisfaction in watching a poor performer lose.  It’s why movies like “Working Girl” or “9 to 5” are shown on TCM.  The plot lines are classic and stir up in us a desire to see someone pay for taking credit for the work of others.  We want to see that perpetrator fired.  We want to see the hard-working underdog get his/her retribution and overdue recognition.  Our nature inclines toward a measure of justice, fairness and goodness.

And yet, when a termination has to happen, even if for those reasons, do we in human resources lose our composure and impartiality?  Think about why Roz, the HR Manager, in "9 to 5" is believable.  And though we’re not judges, we do represent the larger picture for the organizational culture we seek to encourage.  If we’re cruel with someone’s feelings or circumstances, then others who work in the organization might view our approach as exemplary of how things are done at the company.  What was just about a termination might now open the door for sub-par treatment in other employment relationships.

Consider:

• Gossip – How many people really need to know about the termination?  The temptation to share with at least one other person is real.  And while that may not tempt you, it may be that the HR team has taken to inter-departmental gossip about a particular person’s departure.  We call that “safe” since it’s among the HR staff.  Is it?  What is our example to our junior staff members?  If we complain that HR is not included in some other components of the organization’s function and development, perhaps it’s due to the known loose lips of the HR department, even amongst each other.  Gossip is only about making you feel better about yourself, pure and simple.  Listen to what you’re saying about others as you share.  Would you just die if those personal notes were being shared about you to others?
• Just Cause – Of course, documentation is a necessary component of any good termination process as it really starts as part of the overall discipline process, but are you building a case out of a real problematic situation or more because you don’t like the person?  I have watched good employees be terminated because someone did not like a personality, a habit, a laugh (I’m not kidding), etc.  Would it be any surprise that people would be afraid to be around an HR department like this?  Who could be secure?  Look at why and how these terminations are occurring.  Validity and consistency of approach are pillars for the HR team.
• Management Training – Every termination is an opportunity to grow management.  Allow each situation to be a case study for discussion, explanation and potential change with management.  Is there something that should have been or could be done better?  Look together at how this termination might spur others on towards excellence.  How do we foster that?  Develop a plan of growth with management for those employees whose cages will be rattled.  Train a manager through this.  Or just settle for the basic thrill of dropping the hammer on someone’s employment.  It’s too easy to merely laugh with management and then be done.  Use every opportunity to grow people.
• HR Support – Why did this employee fail?  While, in certain circumstances, it will be hard to find anything more that the organization could have done to support the success of the employee, it won’t be the case all of the time.  What broke?  Why?  If it means job duty changes, do it.  If it’s about qualifications rather than the duties, then update them.  If a manager is struggling to deal with someone different than him/her, then coach them.  Whatever action has to happen, work out a plan to do it.  Too many HR departments will sit back after a termination and throttle the manager or other employees in the department.  We know best, right?  As we sit in our unapproachable offices sitting on our ergonomic throne, we dictate our truths about our people and our company.  Probably not the best approach.

This employee being fired is a person.  And as simple as this last thought may be, it is classically the one forgotten the most.  He/She has to go home and tell loved ones.  He/She has to deal with what's next.  And while it may be completely the fault of this person as to why the separation is occurring, and we had to act to separate, this person should be treated respectfully in the process.  It may not make for a great movie to end this way, but it makes for a great company when even the separation displays the right kind of response and culture.

The Boss

Managing people is a skill. Yes, there are attributes that come easier for some which allow them to manage easier, but the use and refinement of those attributes is what makes it right.  The guilt some feel about not being a good manager is often a result of comparison to one of these “naturals.”

Are you a natural?  Do you find yourself easily speaking with your team?  Do you find that there is an ability to connect with people that just flows from you?  That’s wonderful! But, it doesn’t mean that you’re managing people.  It could mean that you are a great friend, a great listener, or a great motivator, but it doesn’t mean management is natural.  Being the boss is meant to be categorized by effectiveness, best use of talent and profitability, to start, not merely being the "fun" manager.

Think about a boss you’ve had that you liked. Perhaps the reason you liked him/her is because of the great manner with which your department was led.  You liked that he/she took the reigns, presented as a resource for the team and kept everyone focused on the mission.  You like that.  You crave good direction.  You desire knowledgeable people to take seriously their role.  Perhaps.

Or perhaps it was because you connected with him/her relationally.  You had common interests.  You shared a passion for sports, for a hobby or for beer (maybe beer is a hobby?).  You got to know each other’s families.  You shared time outside of work being social.  Did that make the person a great manager?  Or merely a great friend?

I am not suggesting that every manager become a Miranda Priestly and remain clearly unfriendly and distant.  However, I am suggesting that swinging the pendulum too far the other way might make managing just as a difficult.  Hone in the skill sets needed to manage effectively and use those skills as you rally your team together.

Time – There is a skill involved in planning and in the usage of time.  If you are someone that just lets things “get away from you” then you aren’t managing.  Time needs to be managed.  Haven’t we all looked at the clock during the work day and thought, “How can it be 3PM? I haven’t gotten done what I needed to today.”  Be competent in time management and help your team to pursue a similar goal.  Efficiencies to process are certainly business-centric and are worth the effort.

Material Knowledge – What do we make, how do we make it, why do we make it.  If it’s a service-related industry, follow the same pattern – what do we do, how do we do it, why do we do it.  You’ve got to know this backward and forward, and be able to translate it well to your team.  They will look to you to see how seriously they should know the answers to those questions.  If it’s just a job for you, then don’t be surprised when it’s just the same for your team.  Be passionate about the ingredients, materials, resources used to get done what you are tasked to get done.

Communication – “Hey, Bud, how ya doin’ today?” should not serve as the moniker of your relational investment.  What does that communicate?  Likely, you are a necessary person in my life and I can’t avoid it.  Intentionality in communication is necessary.  Plan what needs to be said; don’t hope you remember.  Know what and why things have to be shared, the time it will take to do so and the opportunities for that communication to be collaborative. 

Of course, there are more elements than this, but deciding to become proficient in these areas will certainly impact the team being managed.  Once there is a mastery in skill development and process, then begin to attack the next step.  It will become second nature.

The effort matters.  A manager who is deliberate in seeking to refine those skills or to develop new ones sets a stronger tone in his/her department right away.  Your staff will recognize that you’re not there to be everyone’s best friend, but to be a developer of talent by taking seriously your own development.  It also communicates a belief that not everyone is a “natural.”  It’s okay to work at it.  Think about the impact on the team you lead if they see you studying, practicing and exercising these skills.  You will be encouraging them to do the same in their areas of functional responsibility and soft skill development.

There were many days were I would have liked to do a “Devil-Wears-Prada-Throw-My Jacket-On-The-Head-Of-An-Employee” moment, but I didn’t.  I had to make the decision that the proactive development of my management style would be compromised by either creating a too-friendly demeanor or a too-mean demeanor.  So, hold onto your jacket as you walk in and hang it up yourself!

Stir It Up

What can you learn from the Muppets?  Lots.  For those of us in a certain age group, we can recall those fantastic Muppet Show episodes with Julie Andrews, Paul Simon, Diana Ross and a host of other celebrities.  The Muppets would get these respected actors (and Mark Hamill), singers, performers, etc. to don a chicken costume or wrestle with a giant puppet all for the sake of a laugh.

In what ways do we become what we need to in order for the message we need to share to propagate?  I think about the tons of training I’ve done through the years and the ways in which I have had to grow the delivery and the content structure to meet the audiences in need of the knowledge.  Wow.  So many “performances.” 

Please know that I don’t use that word – performance – lightly or with frivolity.  I mean, performance.  The delivery of our information is as important as the information itself.  If we are unaware of the learning styles, the history of training in the company or the expectation of knowledge applied in the company, then we’re likely to see training fail.  That time will be little more than time off from the line for the average worker.

Ultimately, we know that this is not the desire of training.  The goal is usually wanting to expand upon some knowledge already in use and add to its functionality, or use it to build a bridge to another knowledge base.  So many times, I have watched the connection light bulbs go off.  These men and women, who have honed a craft, see the value in the information presented and desire to add it to the repertoire of duties they have.  It’s humbling.

And yet, I have also seen just the opposite.  I don’t always hit it out of the park.  I watch eyes that seem to say, “OK, how much longer do I have to sit here?”  Ugh.  That’s not such a great feeling.  Our duty as trainers is to give connectivity and relevance which comes from knowing your audience and the material well.  It then requires delivery in such a way as to hold attention, show appreciation and encourage participation.

Even in matters of compliance information, how much thought do we put into delivery?  With the Affordable Care Act, there is much to share, for example.  The material itself can be confusing or overwhelming, so consideration should be given as to how to deliver it.  For me, as I've shared with many on this topic, I have begun an information session by asking how the audience would have handled health insurance reform.  Obviously, you've got to keep a tight reign on conversation, but it has allowed the hearers to understand some parallels to the ACA.  Building blocks.  

Listen, constantly doing role play won’t work.  Always doing a video isn’t going to do it.  Arts and crafts at every training session is weird.  Think about variety.  Think about holding interest.  Think about the goal of the information.  Allow that to drive preparation for delivery.  Study the material to know it inside and out, yes, but also figure out what the best delivery method would be.

Think about how weird it might have been to sit in the creative arts and development office for a major television network and offer the Muppets as an adult solution to a primetime slot.  Crazy!  And yet, it worked because the delivery of material (the performance) was mindful of its audience.  We stepped outside of ourselves and entered this world.  That's what training should afford - setting the stage for dynamic engagement where effectual change occurs.

Happy

The goal in life seems to be happiness.  Happiness based on our surroundings, on how we look, on our possessions, etc.  I have been in those seminars that teach you how to be happy.  For only $1095, you, too, can learn the secrets of the speaker.  He/She hops around the stage and over-inflects verbiage to stir a reaction in you (wow, that’s critical of me, isn’t it?).  And do you know who usually has the lasting happiness from that session?  The speaker who just made 70% per person with a room full of 150 people, if not more.

Why do we crave it so?  I think it’s because we are designed to achieve.  We are designed to inspire and to create.  We are designed to engage others and to energize our environment.  Happiness comes from doing what we are designed to do.  The pathing is unique, the skill sets vary and the product takes various shapes, but the outcome is consistent.

In the human resources sphere, I see lots of well-meaning people put together lots of well-intentioned programs.  We seem to think that these programs will fix what ails our people.  If happiness is what our staff is missing, no great program will provide lasting impact.  Sure, there will be some positive results.  Some staff will express gratitude for causing them to think differently about a subject or a process (which is a victory!), but does it last?  If one year later, you sense the same rut returning, then what has that program gotten you?

As taxing as what I am about to say is, over the last 20+ years, the most impactful push towards growth I have been involved with are about the individual.  Working with the individual to find what makes him/her tick. Working with that person to see what he/she can bring to the table.  Working with that person to see where he/she dreams, finds glimmers of fulfillment, and senses purpose.  When we can tap into those things, we find the core of happiness for that person.  That is the heart of the matter.

I believe our staff can find happiness in their work.  Our responsibility is work-related as business professionals; however, I understand and have observed an overlap to the personal lives of those we serve.  If the core of happiness is pierced and inspired to multiplication, then by nature, an individual will want to design his/her entire life around that exposed core. 

For the professional, we have to make a decision to coach effectively.  Coaching is not just about the skill desired or the task to be completed, but it’s about the whole person.  I have had many robust discussions with peers regarding this perspective, but I can only point to the lasting impact differentials I see.  Those employees that have been coached as a whole person, under the auspices of the work environment, have embraced lasting change and have remained happier than those who have not. 

Happiness is a decision; joy is a state of being.  Inspiring the lasting decision for happiness has to be based upon impact and validation.  My circumstances may not make me happy today.  So what does that mean?  Should I be an absolute jerk to those around me (with justification in my mind) because my circumstances suck?  No.  This is not beneficial to the work environment nor to the person.  We have to be content, satisfied, happy regardless of circumstances.  It’s a decision for approach and for interaction. 

Find what makes you happy at the core of your being.  How does that get expressed at work?  How can it get expressed at work?

And, as silly as this may sound, know what brings you back to center.  If you know what makes you happy, and you lose your way, know what triggers will push you back to it.  Is it a best friend?  Is it a favorite piece of writing?  Is it a song?  Talk, read or listen.  Do what you need to and you might surprise yourself at how happy you can really be.  And all that without spending $1095 (I mean, if you want to Paypal me the amount to make yourself feel better, I will send you the link…)

Blurred Lines

You had to know that I would want to use this song for a blog.  I mean, it's the song of the summer.  It's all about having a great time dancing and trying to get a woman.  You know, even though she's a good girl, it's a man's goal to get her to know "she wants it."  Healthy stuff.

Where is Alan Thicke to counsel his son, Robin?  He did such a great job as a psychiatrist on Growing Pains...didn't he pick up some skills to use at home?  Respect for women is not shown by having them prance naked while you sing, "you wanna hug me? What rhymes with hug me?"  And we pay money for this?  I lived this in middle school fantasies.  Is this our adult audience now?

While the beat is dig-able, for sure, the lyrics/message, not so much.  I am no prude, but maybe it's due to how aware I am of what HR gets to deal with on a regular basis.  Sexual harassment is not a once in a while thing for many industries.  I have worked and do work with companies in the restaurant/hospitality, distribution, manufacturing and banking/finance industries.  Ridiculous amounts of sexually-laced communication occur.  And the majority of it is assumed to be welcome and conversant, so therefore okay.

Really? Guess what happens when one of the two participants in "just" inappropriate dialogue gets upset with the company for an unrelated issue?  I hope you guessed!  Everything that once was jovial and understood to be kidding is now represented as unwelcome and forced.  Yes, even language - jokes, innuendos, "you knows."  The liability is great to the company and the risk for the employee's professional future is off the charts.

Again, it's not about being a "stick in the mud" HR person.  I cannot tell you how many holiday parties or summer barbecues I've walked into and saw shoulders slump down upon seeing me.  You know, "Uh oh, here comes the HR cop."  Typically, to throw them off, I ask the DJ to play "Hot in Herre" by Nelly and stand in the middle of the dance floor to see who will join me (it's really funny).  

HR professionals have to keep the company's best interests at heart and in mind.  We have to do that, even when we have to protect the company from the CEO or other C-Suite folks.  If we have to engage with employees to keep them from proliferating sexist language or stereotyping, then that's what we do.  What's the alternative?  To allow it to go on and wait for the company to be sued out of existence?  How does that help?  

I know that some of you reading this are thinking, "Seriously, John? Everyone is just too sensitive."  While I might not disagree with a bit of that sentiment, I do know that something that often helps people to re-focus is to replace the subject of their crudeness or inappropriate language to someone they care for.  I have counseled many men to talk to me about how they would feel if another man were speaking of their wife or daughter in the way they had been speaking about a female co-worker.  Simple, yes, but often really eye-opening.  Many men will tell me that they would not appreciate another man referring to a daughter's body, for example.  Well, guess what?  Every woman is someone's daughter.  Further, they could be someone's wife or mother.  The perspective gets real when this is challenged...the lines are not as blurry.

And I know that women are sometimes the offenders, not the offendees.  I realize this, but I am also aware that the statistics point to us guys more as being the ones committing the infractions.  We can proliferate the stereotypes of women merely being objects rather than equals.

Look at recent events in San Diego or one of a thousand other places.  And while we can joke about the blurred lines, we know they really aren't.  If you have to look around before you're going to share what you are about to share, just shut up.  Don't say it.  That's your conscience telling you not to open your mouth.  Obey it.

If you are a married man, think about the conversation you'll have to have with your wife to explain why you've been fired.  Imagine sitting at the kitchen table sharing that while you and a couple of buddies thought it was really funny to try to get "Susan" to bend over often, it didn't end up funny after she proved harassment.  You lost your job and she is now suing you in civil court.  Makes you re-think things a little bit, right?

Don't fear, HR.  Be the "Stick in the Mud!"  You're not, but own it if it falls to you.  Our lives are not music videos and we are not pop stars.  We work in the real world, with real people and real feelings...and real lawsuits.  Protect the company and protect the people in the company.  Respect is more productive than disrespect.  There's nothing blurry about it.

Get Lucky

The field of Human Resources was given a gift about a week and a half ago.  Paula Deen made headlines for using the N-word in her past and the world wanted to know all about it.

As a kid growing up in the 1970's in Philadelphia, I had heard the word used often.  I also heard lots of other words used - the F-word for a homosexual male, the C-word for a person from Asian descent, the S-word for a person of Hispanic descent, and more.  And if you don't know what words I am referring to, good for you!  The culture of the city at that time was very segregated with Italians living in one area of the city, the Irish in another, the Germans in another, etc.  While it was great for heritage-related pride, it was devastating for human respect and appreciation.

So, am I scarred from it?  I don't think so (I'll check with my counselor).  But, the memories of it came back while listening to the countless "experts" banter on about Paula Deen.  Now while I don't know all of the details of the deposition, I am to understand that she was questioned regarding if she had ever used a derogatory term to refer to someone of color.  She answered honestly and said yes.

My first thoughts were, "Man, I would be guilty, too."  Not about using the epithet that she used, but of using other derogatory and hurtful language towards someone that looked different than me or acted differently than I did.  You see, I was immature.  I thought that my words could fight for me and win.  Being a teenager is not an excuse.  I did know better.

The second thoughts I had were surrounding us in HR.  What if someone who struggled with race or ethnic relations observed how the masses reacted to Paula Deen.  Would it be likely for that person to now walk into work and seek forgiveness and help?  Not likely.  The honest dialogue that we so desperately try to nurture is in danger of being cut off at the knees.  Here is a woman of notoriety who answered honestly in regards to a race-related question.  She has apologized for her wrong from years back and has sought forgiveness.  She has lost her show, sponsorships and endorsements, and the respect of many people.  Not exactly the way to get honest dialogue and healing to happen.

Please understand that this is not about defending Paula Deen.  I don't know her; I've never met her.  I don't own any cookware or even a cookbook from her.  This is about what kind of dialogue we get to influence at work.  Do we honestly think that our workplace doesn't contain people who still use derogatory language?  Do we truly believe that our teams are full of people who think well of each other and are not influenced by someone's color, sex or sexual preference?  We know better.

We cannot believe that we'll get lucky like this current situation presents again.  We have to use this to open up about stereotypes and bigotry.  I have worked for companies where both subtle innuendos and glaring language concerning who is and who is not "like us" was used.  We cannot allow it.  We get to set the stage and encourage the dialogue of the performance to be real so that healing and growth can occur.

Here's a few scabs to pick at: Are managers passing over resumes with names that are too hard to pronounce (code for "they probably don't speak English")?  Are there executive teams that operate as a boys-only club with women holding superficial executive titles but no real power?  Are there manufacturing lines that "happen" to allow people of a similar ethnicity to work side by side while keeping them from different pockets of heritage?  Too close to home for you?  I could go on.

I worked for a national retailer once where a manager told me that on the distribution floor it was important to keep the "Koreans from the Chinese. They don't like each other much."  After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I asked if he also did that with the Blacks and Whites.  He looked at me in shock and said, "John, that's racist."  Really?  Are you kidding me?

The dialogue that we must encourage is far-reaching and cannot be allowed to be shut off.  The response to Ms. Deen might scare people from opening up and addressing those issues that it must address.  Our companies need to be invested in regarding true human relational understanding.  We have made strides over the years (no doubt), but this recent incident shows that it is still tender.

As someone who has experienced first hand the damage that racial stereotyping can do, it is crucial that the dialogue not be stifled by a fear of losing sponsors, or more frightening, a career.  We wind up encouraging people to stay silent and not move towards healing and restoration.  In HR, we can be advocates for open dialogue and engagement towards healing.  Let's talk to people about how things really are.  We ought not to hope to just get lucky with our people; we've got to lead our people.

Show Me

Meetings.  How many are you having a day?  Are they productive?  Has it moved from productive to routine?

It seems like many companies love meetings.  I have been part of more meetings than I care to recollect.  When I was working hard in college (or hardly working, depending on the day), I didn't think that my professional career would be marked by so many meetings.  It's not that I mind, really, but I often think about how fruitful these times are.

When The Cover Girls sing "Show Me," they be-pop the lyrics "actions speak louder than words."  I know we're familiar with this phrase and we think it's true.  We would want our businesses to be measurably action-oriented.  We measure ROI on new hires, training programs and marketing strategies.  We should.  What if we were to measure the ROI on meetings?  What would that show our companies?

If meetings are held just because, then what is it that we are demonstrating?  Our ability to sit in a room and drink K-cup coffee?  Are all meetings just brainstorming?  Complaining?  Or are they motivating?  Do we leave with a sense of purpose and a direction?  Do we leave with actionable items?

And let's add to the distraction.  Now we can have meetings without ever leaving our desks - GoTo Meetings or Skype.  They are convenient, no doubt.  Productive?  Maybe not.  How many times have you worked on two or three other things while you are online "attending" a meeting?  Perhaps the meetings are not productive because you are not totally engaged.  Perhaps you're reading this and thinking, "yes, John, but you don't know how boring the meetings that the CEO holds are."  I guarantee you, I do.

So, let's think productively.  What are some actionable steps that can be taken to improve the ROI on meetings?

First, train the people who are presenting.  Crazy, right?  But let me ask you, how many employees have been trained in this?  Employees of all levels may be required to present reports, charts, projections or processes.  It should not be assumed that all people can naturally hold the attention of a room and can plan accordingly to do so.  I have heard well-meaning people say that practice will help them.  If you are doing something wrong and keep practicing it, won't that just help you perfect your wrongness?

Have you seen the Volkswagen commercial with the dad teaching his son to throw a baseball?  Click to watch this.  It completely proves my point about practicing doing something the wrong way.  In the business setting, we would rather complain about someone who gives poor meetings rather than help him/her to know how to get better at it.  We seem to forget how valuable our time is and that the meeting is meant to be informatively productive.  We should leave the meeting with something practical - a new approach, tools to make a process easier or faster, or a task to complete that will enable other departments to do their jobs better.  Poorly equipped people leading meetings are torturous and costly.

Secondly, decide as to whether a meeting is necessary.  Is it really prudent to hold this meeting?  Can one meeting be held together with another to reduce time spent away from actually working on the tasks to complete?  There is benefit in holding a meeting with three veins of information in one hour than three different meetings of 30 minutes each.  Who can make these decisions?  Can we encourage that person to consider such a request?

At the end of the day, the ROI on meetings should show how these meetings connect to the productivity of the company.  Can an employee take what's offered in the meeting and see it have an impact on the work he/she does?

I should also mention something that some of you may be thinking.  What about the intangible things a meeting gives - camaraderie, interpersonal relationship development, unity development?  I get it.  I agree with this actually.  My question in return would be: is the camaraderie developed concerning how much time is wasted in having these meetings?  Is that what your attendees are rallying around - complaining?  If the goal is to join folks together in unity for an eye-rolling summit, then perhaps you've met your objective.  I doubt highly, though, that this is what a company is having meetings for.

As HR professionals, perhaps we should speak into this area.  Can we serve as a resource for training for managers, supervisors, C-Suite?  Is that too scary?  I hope you're able to have an honest conversation with your CEO about how to make meetings better, even if part of the issue is your CEO.  Your insight might prove valuable to him/her.  I get how risky that is and so I'd advise you to tread lightly.  If you can make this a business case showing ROI, then that will help tremendously.

Time is valuable.  Companies want employees to show them results.  If at the end of the day, you've attended five to six meetings, that may not be a great day.  Haven't you had those days where you say, "What did I do today?"  I have.  I don't like it.  I bring value each day to the work I have been asked to do.  I don't want my time manipulated or wasted.  I like meetings that allow me to do my job better and equip me to achieve.  Meetings held just to hold them are dumb.

Who Says?

In case you don't know, I'm cool.  I took my two daughters to see Selena Gomez in concert.  That's right, me and two tweens, along with hundreds of other screaming tweens.  As I looked around the venue, I saw them.  Dads who were as cool as I am.  I wanted to ask for the microphone after the opening acts were through to announce a meeting for us "Cool Dads."  We should celebrate our coolness, right?  As Selena was singing "Who Says?" this is what I was thinking.  I had to put my mind elsewhere because I realized that the throngs of screeching girls were driving daggers into my ears...um, maybe I'm not so cool.

On a practical matter, I have been privileged enough to bear witness to both sides of the coolness equation for corporate interaction in regards to employee relations and training sessions.  I have seen people dress up, dress down, dress in costume, dress in a dress...you get the idea.  The dog and pony show gets pulled out when certain topics have to be covered or certain compliance points have to be met.  I mean, really?  How many times can I watch a video on sexual harassment?  Part of me worries that if we have to spend so much time defining it, aren't we losing our audience? I, also, think that if we have employees who don't know what sexual harassment is by now, perhaps we should really consider whether their aptitude is at an appropriate level for the company.

To combat this, some HR professionals spend more time planning to introduce engagement programs than actually preparing for the meat of the program.  We want to be cool.  We want the employees to love it.  We want the employees to ask for copies of the presentation.  We want our egos stroked (ouch!).  The Internet is full of stuff for HR folks to use, and unfortunately, as HR professionals, we spend time looking at all of it.  Listen, I am all for updating the repertoire (and I will cross that bridge in a moment) but I don't think we should swing the pendulum so far the other way that the latest and greatest is what we look for constantly.  There is something to be said about tried and true learning methodologies.

Engage your employees based on valid and reliable adult learning and adult interaction principles.  Having dock workers make balloon animals in an icebreaker exercise to prep for a session on appreciating your co-workers might not be the best idea.  Think of the balloons, for Pete's sake!  Know the audience; know your employees.  If, as HR professionals, we are to relate policy, procedure, mission, and vision to the employees we serve, then shame on us when we use trite, non-thoughtful ways to engage those employees.  Aren't we delivering a message that we just don't understand them?  

Take an informal pulse of communications, culture and creativity in the workplace.  Set up a few skip-level interviews and allow them to be causal for both the senior executive and the line worker.  Get feedback from both or sit in on some of them.  You might be amazed at the insight.  The needs of the company may actually be different than you had originally thought.

As promised, however, the other end of the spectrum deserves recognition.  I mean, haven't you seen that FISH video enough?  Are you still pulling out that tape?  First of all, if you've purchased the DVD of it, I can tell you that you've been using it too long - you've had to order the DVD after the original VHS issuance.  It's old!  Some of the guys in the video have mullets (if you have one, I apologize, but it's time to let it go - Billy Ray did!)  Love the message, but those Pike Place fish stink by now.  Look for something newer.  And don't just do it because new is better, but rather do it because new may be more relevant.

The messages in some newer product will use language that is more current and the product of more recent research.  Old data in a presentation will be a distraction to the audience as they try to figure out what the new info might/should be.  It, also, delivers a message that you are just going through the motions, even if you are not.  Don't allow aged material to damage your reputation to employees and to senior management.  Both groups can think you don't have your finger on the pulse.  In 2007, I sat in a meeting where someone shared with the CEO to not worry about social media because it won't be around in a year or two; "there's no money in it" is why he said it would be gone.  So, as many of you follow me and Humareso on Twitter, Facebook, Google + and LinkedIn...you get it.

Relevance is crucial in talent acquisition and in talent engagement.  What I am sharing is not just about Gen Y.  Model technology usage, model fresh approaches, model competitive market analysis and do so in a way that shows investment of time, talent and resources on your part.  The employees we serve are selling and interacting in a culture that is all about those items.  Show the executive team how they can be used internally with employees and show employees how they can be used externally with customers.

I must, however, show love for those HR professionals who are balancing this well.  Adult learning, modern business interaction and relevance is an art to manage and combine appropriately.  I have been in sessions with some superstars.  Part of this week's blog is based on the awesomeness I have seen and the conviction that it can be done well.  Employees were inspired and engaged; they left the room ready to tackle their work differently.  Many left the room confident in the company they work for, confident in the company's approach in the marketplace and confident that they could contribute to that effort.

Who says you can't incorporate accurate appropriate adult learning methods for engagement with modern technology?  Nobody.  Who says you aren't able to invent new modes for your company that show clarity of mission while encouraging updated methodology?  Nobody.  Who says you can't be cool?  Nobody...except your kids.

Pretty in Pink

I was a teenager in the 80's.  I had Z. Cavaricci's (look it up).  A very good friend of mine called me "Duckie."  I had multiple Swatch watches (OK, I still have them...don't judge me).  I loved Molly Ringwald.  When the queen of great 80's movies appeared at the end of Pretty in Pink in her prom dress, that she made, while the Psychedelic Furs sang in the background, I fell even deeper in love.

But guess what?  That love was futile.  It didn't last (plus the restraining order she had against me prevented me from getting within 100 yards of her...but I digress).  The truth of the matter is that I was enamored with the facade.  There was no substance to our relationship.  I didn't really know her and she didn't know me.  Our relationship was one-sided; Molly entertained me and I enjoyed it for a bit.  Was my life really impacted, other than a bit of nostalgia and a couple of correct answers in Trivial Pursuit?  Nah.

It reminds me of training today.  A trainer prepares a session which entertains (maybe) those required to attend.  The attendees may enjoy the time out of production; they make like the lunch provided to "learn" something; they may nod in approval to a new idea.  Yet, what happens after the session?  Many times, employees leave and have little opportunity to engage deeper in what they've heard.  Substance is difficult to maintain in the training relationship.

Part of the issue is defining things as training.  From the part of the HR forest I live in, training is job-related and skill-related.  It is shorter-term in nature and it should have measurable results.  Learning a new software process, a new packaging procedure or a new return policy should be able to be handled in a training session.  In training, a learner should be able to see quickly and clearly WIIFM - what's in it for me.  They should be able to understand how it will make their tasks done quicker, more precisely and more easily. 

For some companies, training is done often.  Management training, new hire training, sales training, etc. are all facets that can be done in the manner described.  However, what some companies think they have are development programs.  Development is long-term.  These programs are just that - full programs.  For example, investing in people to develop leaders is not a training session once a year or even once per quarter.  It is a mindful and intentional commitment to develop specific qualities and perspectives in those deemed able to handle this.  As I am brought into a variety of companies, I see much more training going on rather than development, even though they call it development.

But let me be fair!  Many companies don't encourage development because it doesn't help the immediate bottom line.  And the bottom line matters.  These types of true developmental programs can take a couple of years before significant fruit will be seen.  Companies are not that patient, nor can they afford to be.  They are not mean, but they cannot be that altruistic.  Pepper in what the global economy has been like over the past few years and, like, totally, no way (please read this in your best valley girl inside voice).

And look at the stats on where our educational training puts us.  In the most recent studies, the US school system ranks 25th in Math, 12th in Reading and 20th in Science in the WORLD! (OECD, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html)  With those numbers, we've got take a look at what we're modeling based on what we've seen.  I am not saying teachers can't teach (believe me, I know some exceptional ones), but there has to be a gap in delivering material to encourage learning rather than to encourage meeting some standard.  We have fallen short in challenging people to think critically and analytically which is key to true learning.  If this is the first system that those of us who train and develop see, then it stands to reason that we can easily fall into similar patterns in creating educational sessions for our companies.

Be critical about your delivery methods and the programs created.  As HR professionals, we have to be aware of "flash in the pan" sessions which may entertain but provide no lasting benefit.  If we really are a product, at least in part, of the type of exposure we've been given to teachers and trainers, then make sure you're emulating what works.  Seek out those substantive, exceptional trainers and learn from them.  Study, practice, study and practice again.  

And don't label something as development when it is really training; it will diminish the punch when you really do have something developmental.  Assess whether something is long-term or short-term; determine whether what you want to present is skill needed for the job today or aptitude/ability/attitude-related for down the road.

We've got to be serious about development and we've got to be serious about training.  Both are required, but each is to be approached differently.  Measure success in the short-term with training and use that as you meet with the executive team to encourage developmental programs to start.  Show them that you have the tools and the results.  The C-Suite can also believe that what HR does is just provide touchy-feely sessions and there is no backbone to it; you've got to show them differently.

In my life, I have spent about 6-8 hours with Molly Ringwald.  She presented information that I enjoyed and was necessary for the job I had at the time - to be a teenager.  When I watch those "sessions" now, I can smile for what once was, but it no longer applies.  I have been developed by some significant mentors and through some long-term programs.  Molly can't hold a candle to what those investments meant to and for me.  Not even if she had sixteen of them.