Blog Articles And Comments

Emerging from a recession, grabbing opportunity and surviving intense global competition, we cannot be fooled by the dangerous and misleading propaganda... "Work Smarter, Not Harder!" Statements along these lines when misinterpreted can only lead to disaster. The blueprint for success requires balance. 

Agreed it can be more effective to work smart than to work hard, in most cases both are necessary. In addition, “smart” can be a matter of misinterpretation in itself. “Smart” can only truly be judged by one who is “smart” in the capacity and criteria to be evaluated. “Smart” can be ill defined.  Nonetheless, "Work Smarter" should remain our dedicated target, we just need to lose the "Not Harder" component.

Through study of human work ethic, it is undeniable that many top performers equate “working hard” with “doing your best.” Anything short of doing one’s best is less than adequate. Therefore, working “hard” is always one of the goals. Where and how we channel our energies and how we balance and care for ourselves is a matter of personal choice and commitment.

Nations rich in socialism and suppressed middle class existence present global competition of both working hard and working smart in tandem. Those who wish to compete must rise to the occasion or lose the opportunity to fight another day. While the U.S. is not easily adaptable by history and infrastructure to the socialist principles which have been embraced by other nations, Americans must not think they can exist in a vacuum, especially after centuries of global involvement.

Those proven to offer judgment, accomplishment and commitment to excellence effectively draw upon the “Work Smarter, Not Harder” mantra with astute understanding that successful results require efficiency and sound judgment. These toolsets can lead to quicker, easier and more accurate positive outcomes, freeing our resources to accomplish more in the end.  The mantra works best for those already working hard. Those, however, lacking necessary work commitment are adversely impacted and misled by this mantra, using it as an excuse to retract effort.

This is an essential organizational development topic to be safeguarded by employee education, policies, practices and daily performance management. The ambiguity of related remarks is polluting team members’ understanding of workplace expectations and the blueprint to security and advancement. Consider this both a “call to action” and an opportunity of betterment for organizational leaders at all levels.

Until we learn otherwise, we tend to believe others think and behave as we do. Sometimes that learning comes with a thunderbolt and leaves us with our “jaw on the ground.” Pillared on more than 30 years experience in leadership coaching to a wealth of Fortune-rated and emerging employers alike, this evidence does not falter. Consequently, it is easy to conclude that common sense does not actually exist. Coaching requires understanding motivation, capability and learning style. Without these, the ability to transform is challenged.

If you ask a self-starter why he or she is a self-starter, you shall often encounter uncertainty. According to Bob Galvin, retired Motorola chairman, self-starters and leaders can be spotted by age 14. Being a self-starter derives from intrinsic motivation (coming from within), not nearly as easily influenced as extrinsic motivation (impacted by external variables). Self-starters rarely understand those who are not self-starters, and most individuals are not self-starters. This lack of understanding creates a barrier to audience adaptation and coaching effectiveness.

Employers tend to promote top performers, usually self-starters, to leadership roles. These promotions often occur for the wrong reasons. A self-starter with the right leadership training can lead by example and deploy certain tactics, yet he or she can be challenged in ability to understand and coach those without intrinsic motivation. Leadership is a lifelong learning commitment. Without learning and adaptation to new audiences, we stunt company growth and can only hire a small percentage of the available applicant pool.

Those who study leadership recognize leadership is not a natural progression, but rather a distinctive and precise skillset. Many self-starters are completely disinterested in coaching; however, they accept the role as a title award and advancement strategy. Self-starters are often admittedly more interested in managing processes than people. Employers who create advancement ladders not necessarily tied to supervision are able to truly gauge commitment to coaching and creating transformation. Self-starters often view themselves as self-transformed and therefore may not be inclined to transform others. A supervisor, trainer or coach who fails to create transformation also fails to provide betterment to employee productivity. If the employees are not better for the supervisor’s impact, why is the supervisor retained? Assuming the talent acquisition process is doing its job, successful coaching creates transformation and improves workplace productivity through improved employee performance.

By its very definition, extrinsic motivation is volatile, affected by the employer. Motivation is, in its simplest terms, a reason. Understanding what transformed you to improved performance is a valuable toolset to transforming others. This means looking beyond intrinsic motivation. Those who were “transformed” can be highly influential and motivational success stories for others.

HRS deploys these validated studies in globally recognized assessment and kinesthetic coaching programs, serving employers in more than 100 countries plus world respected academic and certification institutions. Programs are augmented through learning style surveys having earned more than 3000 global responses to date. Typical program methodology includes leadership assessment to pinpoint coaching style, transactional/transformational effectivess and learning opportunities. This analysis is most frequently followed by audience adaptive kinesthetic workshops proven highly successful in transforming leaders, entry through CEO and BOD, into transformational coaches. Please visit AskHRS.com for more information regarding learning survey findings, validation studies, leadership assessment and kinesthetic workshop offerings.

Amidst organizational change employers deploy a wealth of employee assessments in a scheme of cost-benefit analysis. Some overspend the outcomes and then don’t even understand the data. Some sales-based assessment organizations inundate prospective clients with “high brow” tricks while brow-beating them into pretending they understand. What’s just as important as data integrity is simplified and universal buy-in… and the ability to attach meaningful cost saving action. Crazy labels and “smoke and mirrors” are not the keys to predicting success. If you don’t understand, your employees won’t either!

Employee assessment, training needs analysis, legal compliance and leadership development remain at the forefront of today's critical employer issues. Employees and leaders at all levels must be ready to adapt quickly and assume responsibilities, potentially for the first time with limited up front training. Employers can manage 5-7 figure risk with a 2-3 figure implementation before the change. This awareness continues to expand, and the demand for the right employee assessments explodes!

As a follow up to our research essay published by SHRM in 1999 and countless essays since including a Forbes interview a few years back, let’s review the changed environment. A wealth of assessment exercises is now available on the open market, and we endorse some but certainly not all of them. While HRS proprietary instruments are clearly our favorites (shameless plug), we have welcomed the most valid, reliable and meaningful instruments of other vendors into our catalog. Those we exclude and caution against are the many, many instruments that fall short of data integrity, legal compliance and assessor/assessee buy-in. For instance, validity does not exist if you cannot prove test performance directly correlates, within acceptable statistical margin of error, to workplace performance. This includes both positive and negative performance. A common pitfall here is to sample assess your top performers against the instrument and be fooled that good performance on both test and appraisal constitutes validity. That’s only part of the argument. Before assuming complete validation, test your poor performers and potentially those who weren’t selected for hire. 
 

Why Assess?

According to recent survey (to which 3000+ responded), advancement is the primary employee magnet and motivator, yet nearly half of incumbent managers miss at least 45% of the opportunities to be successfully transactional or transformational in leadership tactics. Self starters are proven not naturally inclined to transform others, and are therefore challenged as leaders. Incumbent call center employees are proven to miss more than half of follow through opportunities when presented with task to resolve rather than route. Nearly half of those excelling in external customer service roles underperform with internal customers, creating disharmonious team environments and unnecessary efficiency waste. In the HRSAC SR2 simulation, analytical adaptability consistently reveals itself as the most challenging criteria when employees are asked to assume a changed job condition. In short, job knowledge can hide logic, problem solving and trainability. Change for some can create disaster. Assessment results should pinpoint the “why” and the learning goals behind the performance ratings, present and future. When top performers are competing for promotion, 3rd party objectivity and buy-in are essential to ensure every top performer walks away feeling valued and empowered with tools to win that promotion next time. 
 

What Can Be Assessed?

Leadership Styles/Tactics, Customer Service, Critical Thinking, Analytical Adaptability, Multi-Tasking, Attention to Detail, Problem Solving, Group Presentation Dynamics, Teamplayer Orientation, Time Management, Workflow Planning, Conflict Resolution, Change Advocacy, Negotiation, Persuasion, Natural Abilities and Natural Roadblocks can be measured at a minimum, and are certainly among the most popular. Some erroneously call these the “soft skills.” While there’s nothing less common than sense, I attest these are the “hard skills.” Crafted reliably, in-baskets can predict job success according to any identified job description. Skills tests are available with endless functionality. 
 

Selecting the Right Assessment Instrument(s)

Examining validity and reliability is not as complex as it sounds. The assessment administrator who has an instrument of meaningful integrity will proudly take you through this explanation and may demo the instrument for you. Ask the following questions when choosing the instrument…
1. Inquire regarding validity and reliability studies. This includes pass-fail and/or both positive and negative ratings.
2. Investigate margin of error and resolution thereof.
3. Be convinced the instrument and its scoring report will be meaningful and gain buy-in from all parties. Be convinced the outcomes point to meaningful action.
4. Ensure the instrument’s content, delivery method and criteria support the job description for both meaningful information and legal defensibility. 
 

Delivery Method

On-line assessment grows in popularity due to convenience and has its important place, but for those not required to deliver such communications on the job via Internet, validity and data integrity are compromised. The testing environment should relate to the work environment. For those allowed to deliver key communications on-the-job in discussion, why force only Q&A or multiple choice based tests? Allow essay and/or conversational feedback modules. Such modules should not be computer scored. In short, the testing method and environment must be consistent with the job conditions.
 
In labor intensive or talent based organizations, success is largely impacted by human accuracy or error. Advancement is a key motivator, and a blueprint is essential. With the appropriate tools, employers can maneuver the right people doing the right things. Employers still promote great implementors into leadership, assuming this is the natural progression. Management is not natural progression but rather its own professional skillset and a lifelong learning commitment. The same is true for project management. For those who already buy in to the assessment center method, it remains challenging to differentiate between assessment instruments.

Having endured great cost in creating and validating precisely job specific instruments so obviously on the mark and easily understood that even assessees immediately buy-in, it’s difficult to watch others throw some meaningless crapshoot of a “smoke and mirrors” tool onto a website and pummel advertising at the public held hostage.

The best assessments gain buy-in upon inspection and discussion of scoring outcomes. The HRSAC has validated our proprietary assessments over 26 years working with hundreds of organizations from 10 to 100,000+ employees including global operations. Baselines have been established over these years for job-related criteria across countless demographics and fields. The scored analysis of the job-specific instrument reveals more precisely how behavioral traits would actually manifest themselves in a specific job setting. Probabilities for successful corporate training efforts coincide with these baselines. As interest surveys, personality profiles and integrity questionnaires continue to move out of utilization, job-predictive assessments continue to move in. Reputable assessment instruments come with validity and reliability studies, so don’t hesitate to ask! Sample reports should be proudly presented. Both employer and employee should be convinced. The key to success will be actionable findings, easy to understand with trust that ratings are accurate, job-related and meaningful in career-oriented decisions without bias. If your assessment doesn’t meet all the goals described herein, you haven’t found the right tools. Contact HRS… we’ve got them!

It’s a cliché story... one of the most common mistakes... battling for just the right amount of career confidence and self worth.  Being part of a successful team or system creates a restless feeling and a need to do “bigger, better things.”  The restless overconfident person leaves the successful environment and finds a path of greater resistance.   Of course highly visible in the entertainment industry, the inflated “ego” can break up our favorite television series, sports team, band and far too frequently occurs (although with less celebrity status) in the workplace. 

 

We know you can’t really succeed until you’re willing to fail, and the path of greater resistance isn’t necessarily a bad choice.  Overconfidence, however, is rarely a good choice.  When good things happen to those who feel “entitled,” those good things are often taken for granted and opportunities are missed.   It’s really not surprising how many times overconfidence takes one down a lesser path or a path of greater resistance. 

 

Career overconfidence takes many forms.  Sometimes it bears a very unconventional appearance.  Sometimes individuals have an inflated sense of entitlement or expectations, and accordingly, they inappropriately benchmark their success.  Sometimes individuals underestimate the effort, work or risk tolerance required to attain success.  This form of overconfidence is attached to work outcomes as opposed to talents or skills, yet it can lead to the same pitfalls.

 

The desire for advancement is consistently a survey leader among career magnets and motivators, yet employees too often fail to recognize opportunity or fail to invest the appropriate effort.  When advancement does occur, employees often take too much credit and become overconfident with a heightened sense of workplace demand.  Where employees don’t advance, they often shift blame rather than finding their own sense of accountability.  After failing in one workplace, the blame-shifter often temporarily succeeds in the next.  If this is due to learning, success becomes more sustainable.  If this is due to scorn and determination to prove oneself right while still blame-shifting, after a brief “honeymoon period” the same barriers and original problems may re-emerge.  When team members do advance, they may fail to recognize the support they’ve received, and the self-destructive cycle continues. 

 

On the flip side, employers allow these disconnects by failing to properly distribute education on both success and failure.  Inappropriate distribution of rewards, consequences and information around work outcomes is at the heart of the problem.  The answer is not simple.  It’s a lifelong commitment to learning and refreshing learning, supporting why the leadership assessment and learning programs are among the most popular at HRS. Even once learned, these principles are easy to overlook… and even forget.

 

As an individual, if you think you might be too good for your job, we recommend awareness of the “overconfident” syndrome in hope you may avoid its pitfalls.  If you make a bad choice, don’t dwell on it, but please look back at it for the learning.  Without learning we are destined to repeat our mistakes.  Advancement is above all a product of your choices... and not necessarily which job you have but rather how you approach it.  
 

The key to assessing motivation and predicting results of employees is to pinpoint information they may not even know of themselves.  How do we do this?  Carefully crafted investigations through behavior based assessment and interviewing. Why do we do this?  Work ethic is detectable, complex and begins early. While successful organizational development depends upon the creating and sustaining of extrinsic (situational) motivation, an individual’s intrinsic (from within) motivation can be very difficult to change and requires an entirely different approach. 

 

Work ethic is a core fundamental unique to every individual.  It is developed over our lifetime and benefits from the earliest start possible.  It begins with reaching for the infant toy rather than having that toy placed in your hand.  It stems from inspiration… inspiration through need (sometimes desperation) and requires the belief set that work will influence results.  Those too coddled fail to develop the need.  Those not exposed to role models attaining results fail to buy-in to the outcomes.  We know these fundamentals are shaped and reinforced over our lifetime.  

 

Somewhere in the early 90’s, at a CEO Summit for which he was keynote speaker, I had the good fortune to work one-to-one with Bob Galvin, former Motorola CEO and son of founder Paul Galvin.  Bob & I instantly connected on an essential finding:  future leaders can be pointed out by age 14.  A very controversial summation at that time, people have jumped on board to that thinking more and more.  While several interpretations of “leadership” exist, the leadership we speak of here is visionary leadership and invention through inspiration, creativity, problem solving and risk taking, something for which Bob has been multiply awarded, something that stems from work ethic.  

 

Why can we spot leaders in their early teens? 

 

1)      Intrinsic motivation starts in early childhood, part nature and a lot of nurture.  Messages through parenting and life’s experiences teach a child the connection between hard work, results and rewards.  It requires risk tolerance and effort. “You miss 100% of the shots you never take.” (Wayne Gretzky) 

2)      Success breeds success.  Those who get a taste of accomplishment early can acquire a hunger for it, and of course – a confidence in the ability to attain.

3)      Leadership is not the automatic progression of doing something else well.  It is a distinctive skill set, orientation and career path.  It is marked by characteristics which reveal themselves early in life and need nurturing.  Leadership is also not a degree in management without the knowledge of how to do anything else in specific at which to lead. 

4)      The leadership we speak of here requires willingness to fail and go on, problem solving and a lifelong learning commitment.  Each of these fundamentals are easiest developed at an early age.

5)      Many scientists and psychologists believe our highest level of pure intelligence is at birth and with learning peaking during our first 2 years of life.  Wisdom, education and experience fill in over time proportionate to our exposure.

 

Can this type of leadership emerge later in life?  Yes, through dedicated choice and/or circumstances of revelation impact.  

 

Work ethic can emerge from an intrinsic sense of responsibility and/or when we believe we can or are desperate enough to try to “control our own destiny.”  Leadership is both a subset of work ethic and a combination of behavioral characteristics.  We cannot lead effectively if no one is willing to follow.  We should be willing to lead by example.  Whether a leader of creation/invention or a leader of others, effective leadership relies upon creating inspirational ideas and/or directly inspiring others. 

 

Effective leadership, like any career path, requires commitment.  Commitment requires work ethic.  Parents can be most effective in developing work ethic when they lead by example, create need (inspiration) and reinforce the rewards of work.  Think about the term “street smarts” to further understand the importance of “need” in work ethic development. 

 

Whatever the choices or extenuating circumstances of one’s life, work ethic is simply “doing your best” with sincerity and willingness of sacrifice.  If education is the target, substantial learning is not reliant upon financial resources but rather the willingness to do the work to learn.  People have been self-taught with very little financial resources… Abraham Lincoln, for one.  If advanced education is the desire, college can be self-financed.   Start them young wherever you can.  Parents need to understand their role in work ethic development and they must start at infancy.  If they aren’t willing to do the work, maybe they should just provide access to a proper role model and then leave the kid alone to figure it out. 

 

Make no mistake.  We know the “leave alone” approach can be over-used and backlash with other developmental problems, which is why so many attentive and well-intending parents fear and under-use it – also affecting work ethic and leadership..  We’re looking for balance, commitment, role modeling and work ethic in our parenting.  We’re looking for parents to teach their kids to successfully “leave the nest” by providing supportive age-appropriate guidance, work skills and motivation.  The work ethic development trail can be very telling and predictive to future workplace outcomes.   It can be visible in a self-prepared resume and can be detected in a carefully crafted interview or assessment exercise.  Again, most commonly, it begins in early youth. 

 

In coaching others and continually striving for lifelong learning & self-improvement, I’ve been in search of new ideas regarding business etiquette.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to know when to place your napkin on your lap at a business luncheon, but I’m seeking something deeper, more meaningful and directly applicable to our everyday work lives. 

 

As a starting point, I think a few of the biggest things that aren’t published frequently enough are getting back to the basics of 1) Respect other’s time, 2) “Do your homework” and 3) Listen & Retain.  While these seem to be such “common sense” and simplistic topics, they can be easy to quickly stray from.  With that, these are each things that most certainly point to etiquette in the workplace as without them, you will quickly set yourself up to be an extremely unprofessional professional.

 

Communication methods are very literally at our fingertips in various forms including e-mail and instant messaging.  Accordingly, it’s become incredibly easy to access your co-workers & clients.  While these forms are also a benefit in not needing to physically interrupt someone or cause their phone to ring – they are also easy to abuse.  Most especially taking note that Generation Y has grown up with these tools, we need to train ourselves and our teams to stop, search and review before we execute.

 

Though I sometimes wonder if I was born in the right generation, being a Gen Y’er myself, I’ve found I do crave knowledge and, stereotypically, like instant feedback.  Therefore, I recognize the importance first hand of maintaining patience and having the wisdom to see when there’s time for me to gain more of it.  Requesting meetings and feedback sessions with your superiors not only shows respect for their and the company’s time – but also shows polite respect for their knowledge and experience.  If you’re entitled to the information, management will be more willing to help you grow when you go about it in this regard. 

 

Of equal importance, it’s critical to always be proactive and productive on your own.  After all, isn’t that why you’re paid to be around?  To relentlessly be focusing on the bottom line and your positive impact to it should be a constant driver.  Especially during times of training, have you exhausted your available resources before interrupting a co-worker or superior? 

 

If you’re going to ask a question, it’s imperative to have the courtesy of having done your homework beforehand.  To be able to go to someone informing them of the resources you’ve tapped and information you’ve found shows your determination while letting them get straight to the point knowing those actions have been taken. 

 

Furthermore, it’s vital to then listen to and retain the information you’re given.  As employers constantly strive to attract, listen to, and retain their employees – so should we listen to and retain the assistance provided us to maximize the company’s investment and continue to be an asset to it.   

 

In the long run, needing to know which fork to use becomes irrelevant when you’re not even invited to the lunch with a client - because you can’t wow ‘em in the office.  Your internal team should be your #1 clients!  Get their positive attention, look out for the company’s bottom line, and watch your own grow along with your new opportunities!


Blog Article by Jodi Rasmussen, HRS Assistant Director of Professional Service Operations!

The greatest opportunities missed by individuals or businesses involve de-motivation.  In many instances, blame-shifting is replacing appropriate action.   While most people agree that motivation is a moving target,  “train the trainer” coaching activities are becoming increasingly more in demand.   While not always feasible, it is certain that motivation can be created.  Ample data exists, and we’ve successfully taught others to create and sustain employee motivation.  The business and personal rewards are too enormous to overlook.  The missed opportunities hurt the bottom line and morale. 

 

By definition, “motivation” is a willingness or reason to do something.  It stems from hope and/or confidence that effort or action will influence outcome.  To determine if motivation can be influenced, one must first determine if motivation, or lack thereof, is situational or core to the individual.  Proper coaching and motivation skills must be deployed at the very first interaction and sustained throughout.  

 

Motivation is typically situational, volatile, changeable and easily influenced.   The manager who instills hope and confidence can be rewarded with increased productivity and loyalty.  De-motivation occurs when employers send negative messages (or fail to send positive messages) about the outcomes of work effort, crushing hope or employee confidence.  De-motivation also occurs in stagnant or backsliding organizations.  De-motivation can in itself cause stagnation or backsliding.  Employers and members of management at all levels must take responsibility to build and sustain hope and confidence.  Without rewards and positive feedback, even top performers will lose their "drive."  

 

However, where core motivation doesn’t exist, it may be a costly and inappropriate investment for an employer.  De-motivation may occur during childhood when parents or other circumstances fail to build hope, inspiration and confidence.  Conversely, some individuals pull through the same circumstances with heightened determination, relentlessly seeking approval, survival and/or betterment.  These core motivations can be more solid and less easily influenced by management or training technique.  It is a manager’s responsibility to distinguish between situational or core motivation.   In a labor intensive environment, it is in the employer’s best interest to ensure managers have the resources to make this distinction.

 

By NO means do I take the responsibility off of employees.  People need to “suck it up” and do some work.  Whining is never an acceptable solution.  I found gainful employment at the age of 8 and have never stopped working.  Motivation is perpetuated by simply working hard until you achieve results.  Those results will feed more motivation.  If not, the desperation should motivate.  It’s simple survival skills… life skills!  Employees must always understand that demonstration of motivation through results is the only way to sustain gainful employment and get ahead.  Employees must take responsibility for the results of their work and be accountable, always willing to improve and be challenged.

 

In the mix of this, managers should not be overinflating employees or bribing them to do their jobs.  Overconfident people present problems, personally and professionally.  Employees don’t need mixed messages.  Rewards come in for the "above and beyond."  Simply doing your job at best yields the right to potentially keep your job and avoid negative consequences; unless someone else steps up to do it more effectively, cheaper, reliably or with a better attitude and potential to advance.

 

There is nothing more rewarding, both personally and professionally, than instilling hope and motivation into another human being … and watching that person convert new motivation into productivity, results and teamwork toward collaborative gain!   I’ve seen this happen many times and it continues to inspire!  Any disbelievers simply aren’t doing it right and need additional training… maybe they can’t lead by example because they are “unmotivated.”  To motivate, you must yourself be motivated.   Look to the “why” and the answers shall unfold.

Born 1980 to 1994, they’ve been called “pampered,” “nurtured” and even “spoiled.”   Raised with astounding conveniences and immediate electronic feedback, they’ve been simultaneously disheartened by negative impacts to trust coming right into their living rooms in an age of overextending media and never-ending awareness of world tragedy, terrorism and economic disaster.  Coddled by parents wanting their kids to have everything they didn’t have, they sometimes set their work thresholds low.  As a proud parent to a couple of these high functioning “millennials,” I understand their perspective and see an opportunity to mentor.

 

As a Baby Boomer, I firmly understand that my generation hasn’t exactly “gotten it right,” and while I’m proud of personal accomplishments and the accomplishments of my generation on the whole, I certainly recognize the opportunity for improvement.  To improve from one generation to the next is the very definition of progress.  It is not only the right but also the responsibility of each generation to improve upon the previous generation.  So, who are we to tell Gen Y they are wrong?

 

Should the entire generation stand united with determination to work less and tolerate less stress, maybe change can be effected.  I can already tell you, however, that several young members of this group are stepping up impressively.  In my generation, if you don’t work relentlessly, someone else will step up and steal the opportunity.  It’s simple competition and free enterprise.  In my generation, I don’t know how to serve my family, serve my community and serve my sense of pride and accomplishment without hard work and high stress tolerance.   These are essential survival and self-esteem skills I deem critical.   Wellness experts argue we need lower stress tolerance.  A hopeless workaholic myself, I believe the answer lies in balance.  Often multi-tasking, Gen Y's tasks are not always work related.

 

Regularly invited to speak to CEO’s, HR/OD professionals, corporate teams and media reporters on this topic, I guarantee this is an issue of popular concern.  As always, we must remember that each generation is comprised of individuals, individuals who are exceptions to the baseline rule of any generation.   Nonetheless, we must measure each generation by the median characteristics.

 

I think back to a sitcom which quoted “We were so busy giving our kids what we didn’t have, we forgot to give them what we did have.”  Determined to do things differently than our parents, we Boomers applied different concepts to parenting.  Is Gen Y reversing the process?  We are now pummeled with media discussing the low tolerance, impatience and neglectful parenting skills of Gen Y as they begin to raise kids.  We hear stories of child abuse.  Programs like “The Baby Borrowers” mock this generation’s ability to parent, albeit these couples are very young.  Has my generation created monsters?

 

I think not.  I believe we simply need to step up and transfer knowledge without crushing their idealism and determination to lead a healthier, more well-balanced life.  We simply need to mentor this generation and help them learn lessons, if at all possible, without forcing them to attend the same “school of hard knocks” we did. Yes… I know “that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”  (Quite frankly, I’m a testament to that old adage.)  However, if they can learn a few things more quickly than we did through our patience and mentoring, hopefully this new generation can keep the progress rolling forward.  Once we transfer the knowledge, I’m quite certain they’ll still run into a whole new set of challenges, but it just might be the “college of hard knocks” with advanced learning to benefit us all.  

"Friendship" is risky in the work environment. Several years back I worked with our local Fox affiliate to create a television news piece "Dating in the Workplace," and many of the same rules apply. Bias, competition and goal conflicts enter the relationship. Friendship may be an illusion from the start, a "power play" or public relations initiative. The healthiest "social" friendships seem to emerge between employees who lack career hope and ambition, bonded in their contentment with the status quo, probably snickering at those "playing the game" to climb the corporate ladder. Such predictable alliances are noticeable by management, branding all participants as guilty by association, injured in upward mobility simply because of their chosen "friendships."

During 30 years of study, I’ve watched people accept employment with large companies to "make friends." Similarly, I’ve watched people strictly avoid friendships at work. As the rules for friendship and teamwork can differ dramatically, they may present conflict. With multiple definitions and interpretations of "friendship," complexity abounds. Typically, this arrangement of personal camaraderie, without boundaries or specific goals, hinders upward mobility in the organization if not funneled properly into teamwork and alignment with corporate goals. Too often friends lateral in the organization can betray one another, selling out for upward mobility. Both vertical and lateral friendships are risky.  Healthy employment choices are those made for the right reasons, bringing appropriate expectations. 

 

Tear down the thought of a management "ivory tower."   Workplace power is available to all!

Whenever I hear employees actually criticizing a co-worker for "kissing up" to a supervisor, I either scratch my head or roll my eyes.   The ambiguity of this phrase leads to derogatory interpretation of sometimes highly successful workplace practices.

If this term refers to recognizing and playing to workplace power in an effort to augment one's own career power, then every responsibile individual with a hint of motivation toward self-interest should "suck up."   However, it is certainly controversial to sacrifice one's integrity and core values long term for workplace advancement.  That situation would be a great topic for a new blog entry and needs to be excluded from this argument.
 
While it's clear that "employers of choice" create teams where employees and employers work together willingly toward clear and collaborative goals, I certainly agree many employers -- and employees -- "miss the boat" here.   Where an employer hears employees derogatorily tossing this term around to incumbent coworkers, an employer must ask "am I doing something wrong?"  The answer could lie in failing to communicate and create an appropriate system of performance outcomes.  The answer could also lie in hiring the wrong people.

Where an employee finds his/herself actually thinking that playing to and respecting power is not beneficial, the employee should re-evaluate his/her own career advancement methodology, goals or work ethic.  That employee might also wish to question if s/he is working for the right employer.

More info at AskHRS.com.