So, let’s talk about references. Recently, I heard an HR generalist ask about references. They wanted to know:
a) If they were limited to the references provided by a candidate,
b) What to do if they could not contact someone because the candidate wouldn’t give permission…, and
c) What good were references anyway since past managers and HR shops can’t give out any info??
Hang on to your seats, my answers may get rough… I’m just doing some free-wheeling here, so stay with me.
Managers/HR won’t give out information? Sure they can, and from my experience, usually do. I sometimes have great conversations, and make long-term acquaintances through these calls. I have friends today whom I met as I was speaking to them about a reference. Can’t shut them up sometimes.
I do, however, ask candidates for references for 2 reasons:
1) To make my life easier in finding telephone numbers, and
2) To get an idea of whom they would prefer I call, versus not.
Neither of those reasons is to get permission. I will always talk to immediate supervisors for at least 5 years back. Always, whether listed as reference or not.
Did you get that part?? Whether they list as references or not.
I will honor a request — it IS a request — to not call a currently-employed candidate’s current employer, as long as they realize I must do so either before an offer is made, or after a “contingent” offer is made. 100% of the time. No matter what the impact may be — no current reference, no job.
Now, some opinionated rambling…
There is no legal requirement, per se, for giving/not giving references or even employment verification (for future employment).
Further, though I realize many in HR choose — on their own — to limit their reference responses, I believe that practice is both limiting and detrimental to both employers.
This whole “name, rank and serial number” thing began as HR managers became afraid (unjustifiably, in my mind) of saying something malicious that they could be held to later.
In playing this self-inflicted “don’t tell” game, we encourage people to circumvent HR in the reference process, making operational/functional managers the go-to for adequate references.
And make no mistake — regardless of policies, most managers WILL give references, good and bad.
I believe our organizations would be better served if we controlled the real reference information, instead of simply sticking our collective heads in the sand.
We speak so often about “the economy,” as if it’s this latent beast lurking about that no one can influence or control. And that beast, according to many, unilaterally influences success and failure in myriad ways through all walks of life and industry.
Balderdash.
Regardless of how you measure “the economy,” it doesn’t fundamentally
“cause” ANYTHING; it merely exists in the background, sort of like the
movie “Matrix.” It’s a backdrop for industry, a simple, somewhat undefined engine creating a lot of white noise. And sometimes, distractions.
We hear too often, from both colleagues and clients,” Man! I sure will be happy when ‘this economy’ turns around,” and in response to the ever-present question ‘How’s business?’ we hear ‘not bad, considering the economy.’”
Money is plentiful. Banks have it, private equity folks have it, and even venture capitalists have it. Lots of it. If they aren’t investing, it isn’t because of a lack of financial resources. Earnings are up, the Dow is up, unemployment is down, annual reports read like boom-time in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
Nearly every available economic indicator says “the economy” is doing pretty darned well. So, then, why are many still using “the economy” as a crutch for failure (or at least mediocre results)?
Now THAT’S a good question. In my opinion, many use it simply becauseit’s the easiest, most available, fully-understandable excuse for lackluster performance (never waste a good crisis, eh?). Everyone continues to nod their head in reverence when discussing “the economy,” as if a demonstrated lack of respect would unleash the fury of “the economy” on their worlds.
Which, of course, is simply more bunk.
Here comes a profound statement. I figured I would announce it, since much of what I write may be decidedly UN-profound. Here goes: “If anyone in your world is succeeding today, and you are not… IT’S NOT THE ECONOMY!”
Did you get that? If someone in your space, business, industry, market, locale, etc. is succeeding today, then any use of “the economy” for less than stellar performance is just another cop-out. So, in the immortal words of my doctor, when I tell him that it “hurts when I do this or that…” “Well, STOP DOING THAT.”
Using James Carville’s slogan during the Clinton election campaign (with just a slight modification), “It’s not the economy, stupid!”
International Paper (IP) CEO Mark Sutton is the real deal. A 30-year IP employee, he has managed to redirect this 117 year-old institution from simple paper (think office supplies) to packaging (think of all those Amazon boxes).
Through skillful and strategic divestitures and acquisitions, Sutton unloaded underperforming legacy operations (beverage packaging and wood products) while picking up those visionary directions (again with the Amazon boxes. Plus UPS, Fedex, et al) that are the forward-thinking antithesis of Intel, this month’s Laggard.
The paper business has a tough history. I’ve been in a few paper mills; it’s a real “heavy industry” environment, and well, the aromatic challenge is significant. They don’t smell like roses. It’s manufacturing at its core, and the people working there earn every dime.
Sutton’s approach to visionary success is different than most large-company manufacturing CEOs. He didn’t do it by focusing on bricks, mortar, and fast dollars; he took a simple, leadership centric approach.
“People think of us as a manufacturing company, but we’re really in the people business.”
Say what?! That’s crazy talk coming from a manufacturing boss, who went on to say “…the real differentiator for long-term value creation is people.” Not assets, not creative financing, not outsourcing jobs to China. People.
The success of IP is obvious and notable. The stock price has nearly doubled in four years, productivity is up 40+%, driving earnings up as well. This guy knows what he’s doing. It’s hard not to write a tome praising this guy—both his approach and results. I’ll end with a quote from him we would all do well to remember:
“You’re not a leader because you were named to a position or have a degree in your back pocket,” said Sutton. “You become a leader when the people who’re supposed to follow you decide you’re a leader.”
Mark Sutton is the real deal, and an exemplar. And he’s this month’s Leadership Leader.
Milquetoast
We left Volkswagen alone for six months to see if they’d learn any lessons from the emissions cheating scandal. No need to rehash ex-CEO Martin Winterkorn’s epic leadership failure, and we’re not surprised that he’s no longer on the Porche and Audi boards, since that’s what we suggested last October.
Now that VW has taken an $18+ billion provisional charge to cover the fallout, wiping out almost all of the shareholders’ dividends, someone doesn’t think the senior executives — including Winterkorn — deserve their business-as-usual bonuses for 2015 performance.
Normally, it’s the shareholders who rise up like the villagers in Young Frankenstein. Not this time.
Who then, labor? After all, most of VW’s half a million workers don’t get bonuses, and almost all will be affected by slumping sales. Nope.
It was VW CEO Mattias Mueller who actually suggested a reduction in executive bonuses to the board steering committee after the German state of Lower Saxony — a major shareholder — complained. Mueller was eventually able to twist the board’s arm to accept a 30% reduction in bonuses, but they didn’t like it.
How much are we talking about? Well, in 2014, the $61 million in executive bonuses accounted for more than 75% of the executives’ total compensation. Yep, $18 million in base salary plus $61 million in bonuses.
If I were the shareholders, I’d be pissed about their base salary, too. And I might storm the castle if any executive got a bonus while the emissions scandal was still unresolved.
So good on Mueller for bringing the proposal forward. Shame on both he and the board for feeling entitled to the fat share of the spoils. A lost opportunity to for a leadership team to take accountability and show they care about the serfs.
The only thing this executive board deserves to share is April’s Leadership Milquetoast award. Prosit!
Laggard
Bottom line up front: Intel is cutting 12,000 jobs because its leadership has no vision.
Okay, that’s not entirely fair; their vision is so short-sighted that the strategy that’s based on it is taking them down the tubes.
CEO Brian Krzanich, the “safe pick” to move from COO to CEO in 2013, announced the cuts last week as an effort to be more efficient and invest in areas like data centers, memory, and the internet of things.
Not to worry, says Stacy Smith, just named to move from CFO to de facto COO, “we’re in the midst of this transformation and we’re executing well through it.” Their new strategy will take them from being the “heart of the PC to the heart of the Cloud,” says Smith.
That’s some bold thinking, considering declining PC sales — at least the prediction of it — is so last decade.
Just like culture, the failure of a company to recognize and understand changes in the market and their external environment falls squarely at the leader’s feet. Intel’s conservative culture has made them slow to adapt to both, doing more of the same in a down market.
What’s the evidence? Just this past January, Krzanich (who, with Smith, have more than 60 years combined at Intel), declared 2016 to be a macroeconomic copy of 2015 and identified robotics, automation and integration as “next emerging trends.” He also predicted that industrial use of drones could really take off (pun intended).
Wow! Or as the English would say, “Brilliant!”
Having missed out on the smart phone and tablet markets, Intel’s leadership completely misjudged the speed people would abandon PCs and is late to need identifying development opportunities beyond the cloud like artificial intelligence and virtual reality.
It’s possible that the introduction of new blood in the form of a President for the Internet of Things could turn Intel from its seemingly dogmatic culture. After all, past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns.
And in the meantime, 12,000 Intel employees get an opportunity to find somewhere else to work.
Thanks, Mr Krzanich. Intel’s culture may have eaten its strategy for breakfast, but it can’t have been a very satisfying meal. For that you get to be April’s Leadership Laggard.
First, my bias — I “grew up” in Human Resources, finishing my coprorate stint with successive roles at the VP/SVP HR level. So, I somewhat “know from which I speak…”
The skills required of senior HR leadership of today and the future are so incredibly different than those required in the past, that the job almost seems to be a different profession.
Gone are the days of employee advocacy, pseudo-ombudsman, and feel-good party-planners.
Present & future HR leaders must have consummate business skills, including sound, educated, financial acumen. Additionally, HR specialist managers must maintain that specialty expertise (compensation, benefits,recruiting) while learning and leading with those same skills listed above.
Organizations must be able to look to their HR leaders for financial information on the human capital efforts, emphasis, and directions. Simply determing “cost” isn’t enough — we’ll need to show, demonstrate and explain real “VALUE.” In other words, why the hell should a company give you money and resources instead of putting those same resources to work in marketing, product development, or R&D??
We cannot stress enough that future HR leaders must know — KNOW — the business. I don’t mean the HR business or profession, but the “business.” They have to get their hands dirty; be willing to take on a multitude of non-HR responsibilities and accountabilities — HR is merely a specific background for a top executive, it doesn’t define their over-arching role and deliverables.
The best example I can give is that the largest private employer in free world — Wal-Mart — selected someone with NO human resources background to lead their human resources function. They clearly needed a “leader” first, an “HR expert” second. I believe this is the future we are going to realize, and their will be many incapable of getting on that bus.
The most significant skills — bar none — that these future HR leaders must have include:
1. Real business understanding — get their hands dirty enough to understand HOW and WHY we make money,
2. Financial acumen, and
3. Talent management: identification, development and recruitment.
This train is leaving; get on, get off, or get run over. Organizations have a right to these expectations, and I believe they will insist on receiving them in the not-too-distant future.
My thoughts on succeeding in HR and adding real value to both the organization you work for and your professional career:
1. First, you cannot effectively manage human resources from a book, a website, or some online forum. You can’t. You can pick up tips and tidbits, some compliance knowledge, and a few very generic processes. Most of the rest — the other 98% — takes individual thought, planning, experience and creativity.
Compliance is simple — a CD-ROM could do it. Effective application of employment laws in a successful business… THAT takes work.
2. Quit searching online and asking others for templates. Sit down, learn a bit from those plethora of books you should have, talk to a few people who may have some insight, THEN CREATE YOUR OWN. Using someone else’s, even customized, isn’t yours. And it usually won’t work, since someone developed it SPECIFICALLY for their organization. And no, you don’t really just want to “see what one looks like.”
3. Rating categories and forms will not, under any circumstances, make an effective performance management system. Just one more pain in the rear for line managers to deal with. It’s bigger than the forms, folks. Forms may have a role, but they are not the core of performance management.
4. Learn to recruit. REALLY recruit. It is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE DO. Second to none. Those who feel they have “outgrown” recruiting — rethink that. Maybe you’ve outgrown hourly recruiting, but you still better be an effective talent manager, and that includes sourcing and recruiting.
5. Never train because someone asks for training. In all likelihood, training isn’t the answer. Except in matters of compliance (usually education, not training) or technical skills, training is really only effective for development, seldom for corrective action.
6. Google is your friend. Research. A lot. Of everything… asking in some online forum INSTEAD of researching isn’t just lazy (though yes, it is), you are harming your learning experience. You need more than pointed answers, clouded by someone else’s experience. Find out WHY things work that way, HOW we got where we are, and WHAT you can do to impact meaningful change.
7. Speaking of training, learn it. If recruiting is #1, employee/managerial development is a close second. Knowing how to develop managers — coaching and training, is a skill ALWAYS in demand. Go to Toastmasters. Offer to teach at some affiliate or association group. Learn with green “wannabe” supervisors. But learn to train and develop.
8. Don’t ask anyone “How can I justify XXX” until you can JUSTIFY IT TO YOURSELF. Attending conferences, implementing a new program, allocating resources… if YOU don’t know why, how the heck can you convince someone else???
This field is no longer for those with good “people skills;” it’s for those who understand that human capital is an adjustable, malleable resource that we are responsible for developing. Time to step it up a notch…
I don’t generally support pay reductions. They seldom have the desired effect. Having said that, and in contrast to others (mentioned below), Shell’s Ben van Buerden is the poster-child/rock star for CEO pay reductions, after he saw his total package drop nearly 10% amid our crazy oil pricing environment.
Contrast that with BP’s Bob Dudley, who recently received a 20% increase in his pay package, after smoothly revealing that 2015 was the worst financial year in the oil giant’s history. The worst. The Board’s compensation committee also said that executive directors received no increase in base salary in 2015 and that senior leadership would not see salary increases this year either.
How, exactly, does that conversation work? “I’ll take 20%, please. Let them eat cake.”?? I didn’t want to give Dudley any more airtime, or we could have made him this month’s Laggard.
Shell’s Board said: “Shell’s executive compensation reflects delivery of our strategy… there is a clear alignment between the company’s performance and our compensation policies.” I should say so. If van Buerden has to go back to the cost-cutting well with added layoffs and/or pay restrictions, at least he’s felt some of the pain, and has some degree of personal credibility.
Look, we can all argue for days about CEO compensation. Having the burden of thousands of families depending on your decision-making is certainly worthy of compensation. But optics matter as well. In these times for Oil & Gas, a CEO accepting/insisting on a pay reduction (or at least not a pay raise given only to you) is a solid standard to which others should aspire.Shell’s Ben van Buerden set that standard, we appreciate it, and he’s our Leadership Leader for March.
Leadership Milquetoast
Being a veteran doesn’t give me any special standing to be disgusted at the waste that brought down the CEO and COO of the Wounded Warrior Project. It’s a way too familiar story in the non-profit world, and we’ve all been warned to be careful who we give our money to.
I’m disappointed, of course, because that means millions of dollar (possibly tens of millions) were diverted from helping a cause near and dear to my heart. But I can’t say I’m surprised.
Oddly, what was least surprising to me was the milquetoast way WWP handled the firing of CEO Steve Nardizzi (who helped found WWP in 2003) and COO Al Giordano. Nardizzi has long been a vocal critic of the charity rating system, and even predicted this very reaction to alleged wrongdoing in his July 15, 2014 post about how charities “should lead the dialogue about charity ethics and effectiveness.”
(The fox guarding the henhouse? The first sentence presciently reads, “There’s no shortage of news coverage on the charitable sector when a charity … is suspected or proven to be fraudulent.”)
I watched with disappointment as WWP Chairman Anthony Odierno’s attempted to regain the nation’s trust on the morning news. He said that while the charity’s independent review may have uncovered some opportunities to strengthen some controls and policies, “a lot of the allegations were not accurate.”
Hardly a damning enough indictment to justify decapitating the senior leadership team. In fact, Odierno’s dead-pan assertion that the dismissals were for “certain judgment decisions that could have been made better” left my spin-detector buzzing.
CBS news claims to have spoken to over 100 current and former WWP employees who described lavish spending and a toxic culture. That’s enough smoke for me to reach for a fire extinguisher.
Leaders get just one opportunity to admit wrongdoing in their organization the right way. Acknowledge it, take responsibility for it, and apologize for it. Odierno missed his chance.So congratulations for another apology-that-isn’t, Mr Chairman. It didn’t win our trust back, but it did win you this month’s Leadership Milquetoast award.
Leadership Laggard
Full disclosure: someone from Zenefits keeps spamming me asking if I want their help running my business. Not likely.
What a month it’s been for Zenefits, the beleaguered San Francisco-based human resources software startup who’s CEO resigned last month over “compliance failures.” Parker Conrad stepped down amid “revelations” that some of the Zenefits salesforce was selling health insurance without required licenses, and David Sacks was promoted from COO to CEO and promised to fix their “inadequate” compliance processes and controls.
According to Sacks, the company grew so fast, it outgrew its culture and controls, which (I suppose) would have kept it from breaking so many laws. To un-grow, Zenefits gave out about 250 pink slips – almost all to the salesforce (whose boss left right after Conrad). Hopefully, they didn’t let anyone go who had a broker’s license… they didn’t have enough of those in the first place.
Oops, I forgot. Right before the layoffs, Sacks banned drinking at work. Talk about kicking employees while they’re down.
Culture’s a funny thing – sometimes literally. Last summer the company’s management felt its culture needed adjusting so it sent out a memo last summer that declared building stairwells were no longer to be used for smoking, drinking, eating, or sex.
So what’s the big deal? Sounds like a great place to work.
The problem is Sacks. Or more accurately, Sacks was already part of the problem, and now he’s CEO. What was the board thinking?
Are we to believe that the COO didn’t know that the salesforce was selling insurance without brokers’ licenses – that’s been public knowledge since at least November! Zenefits would certainly like their clients and investors to believe it, but I have a hard time with the idea of a CEO and VP of Sales creating a culture void of ethical behavior by themselves. What is this, Volkswagen?
Apparently, Sacks has disavowed any knowledge of wrongdoing and laid the blame for the culture at Conrad’s feet; that seems to be good enough for the board.
And it’s good enough for us… to make the Zenefits board – including Sacks – our Leadership Laggards for March. Congratulations, gentlemen.
