There was a time when the words used in job ads actually made sense.

These days the words used seem to have little relation to either the skills needed or the opportunities offered.

For example, courage

Courage is mentioned in a variety of job postings for minimum wage retail and service work. Companies like JCPenney (where an ideal employee will “show the confidence and courage to do what’s right“), Ann Taylor (in which one “has the courage to know who she is“), and Lululemon (wherein a worker “leads with courage, knowing the possibility of greatness is bigger than the fear of failure“) ask for it specifically in job ads.

Does that mean the employee can expect a positive outcome if they have the courage to report their boss, another executive or a customer for harassment?

Then there are the companies looking for passionate workers.

Lisa Cohen, an associate professor of organizational behavior at McGill University’s Desautels School of Management shared that passion is a common attribute that companies she’s spoken with want, but they struggle to explain why.

“They haven’t defined the term,” she said. “They don’t know why it matters and probably what they’re looking for—and they’ll put this in not particularly nice terms—is somebody who’s going to work like crazy for long hours, right?”

Hiring for intangibles is smart, but it should be for traits that actually matter, as opposed to smoke and glitter.

Image credit: Robert Nunnally

Last week we saw how the best places to work rankings change — Google was number one for six straight years, now it’s number eight, while Facebook dropped to seventh place.

People change too. Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who was named the world’s most reputable CEO in 2018, didn’t even make the top 10 this year.

Friends and family often aren’t aware of the most current news about a company and even when they are they may minimize it, especially if the company is hot or an icon.

This isn’t just about Google; Facebook, Amazon or dozens of others that are just as problematical.

Hot startups encourage you to jump in without due diligence. WeWork may seem like an extreme example, but it’s not as uncommon as you might think — remember Theranos, Uber and Zenefits.

It’s about how fast things change, both the big stuff and the little stuff, all the stuff that underlies culture and trust, which can and should affect your decisions.

Because it’s your career, your life and, corny as it may sound, your soul.

Image credit: chaukhat.com

Next Monday’s Oldie is about what to look for when choosing a place to work, with a special caution for unicorns.

Today I thought we’d take a quick look at a “great place to work” myth.

Google topped the best places to work lists for years, but no more.

According to the 2019 Glassdoor survey Google is in 8^th place based on 9186 reviews.

Last year 20,000 people walked out in protest over the handling of sexual harassment accusations and Google promised to do better.

But almost a year after the historic walkout, a dozen current and former Google employees told Recode that many employees are still justifiably afraid to report workplace issues because they fear retaliation. They say the company continues to conceal rather than confront issues ranging from sexual harassment to security concerns, especially when the problems involve high-ranking managers or high-stakes projects. …dozens more employees say that when they filed complaints with Google’s human resources department, they were retaliated against by being demoted, pushed out, or placed on less desirable projects.

… Google’s top-down culture that suppresses meaningful employee pushback — even in areas the company says it’s trying to improve on, like diversity.

To really find out about a company you need to do the same depth of due diligence on it that the company does on you.

That requires more than reading employee reviews; it means searching traditional media as well as proven new media.

And checking out who left and why.

Most of all it means making the time to just do it.

Image credit: Ben Nuttall

I’m frequently accused about being badly out-of-date with current terms, let alone trendy ones, but I find myself using them even when they make me uncomfortable. That’s the case with “talent,” a term I’ve used, although it makes me squirm. This post from Wally Bock does a great job of explaining why. (I never really thought it through.) Thanks, Wally!

I’m sick of “talent.” I’m sick of wars for talent, and talent pipelines, and talent acquisition. I’m sick of talent anywhere it’s used as a substitute for people. People are not talent. People have talent. People are more than talent.

There’s no such thing as disembodied talent. Every bit of talent comes wrapped up in flesh and blood people.

People Are More Than Talent

People aren’t just talent. They bring you their hopes and fears. They bring their experience, expertise, and passions. Sure, their talent is important, but so are other things.

Their work ethic is important. The other people on your team want to work with someone who pulls their own weight. If you’ve got a slacker, even a talented one, you’ve got a problem.

Social skills matter. Nobody wants to work with or for a jerk. If you’ve got a talented person who can’t get along with other people, you’ve got a problem.

The situation matters. Context is critical. Talent is specific. If you’ve got a talented person in the wrong job, you have a problem.

Let’s quit talking about talent as if it’s some disembodied thing that we can bottle or store or (gag) develop. Instead, let’s think of talent as one of the many parts of those complex and wonderful people we work with.

Image credit: Three Star Leadership

Amazon is right up there when considering big tech Kool-Aid.

All by itself it has done more to addict consumers to near instant gratification, with no vision past themselves, than any other company.

In doing so it has actually killed people and ruined lives.

And it has done it in a way that shielded it from both notoriety and financial responsibility.

Rather than a synopsis and comments from me, take a few minutes to read the original ProPublica’s, in conjunction with The New York Times, investigative article.

This isn’t the first article detailing deplorable working conditions that have resulted in numerous walkouts by Amazon and contracted workers,

But the only walkout that would actually have an impact is a customer walkout.

Obviously, it’s unlikely that anyone will actually quit using Amazon.

But if just 1% of users stopped for just one week, Amazon would definitely sit up and take notice.

And if a higher percentage stopped even better.

Whether it’s Amazon, Uber or any of dozens of other companies whose business model is built on unfair/dangerous worker practices they need to step up and start taking responsibility for the actions of people who deliver their “experiences,” instead of claiming they are “independent contractors” while still controlling their daily actions at work.

Image credit: Mike Mozart

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

It’s said that money is the root of all evil, but there are plenty of evil people with no money and lots of wealthy people who do enormous good. I think it’s more accurate to say that greed is the root, since people will do anything to satisfy it. And often, what they do is perfectly legal — but legal doesn’t mean either ethical or moral.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

I’m no happier about the AIG and other bonuses paid to screwed up Wall Street banks, but I’m not sure why any of us are surprised.

“In the largest 25 corporate bankruptcies between 1999 and 2002, while hundreds of billions of dollars of investor wealth and over 100,000 jobs disappeared, the Financial Times found the “barons of bankruptcy” made off with $3.3 billion.”

Giant compensation packages, guaranteed bonuses and platinum parachutes are excused by Boards and executives as necessary to attract the “best and brightest,” but here’s what’s really going on.

The ‘names’ demand outsize compensation/stock options/guaranteed bonus/etc. in order to validate their ‘brand’.

Those responsible for hiring not only meet the demands, but even exceed them in an effort to attain or sustain the company’s reputation as a better home for ‘stars’ — the more stars you have the greater the bragging rights — mine’s bigger than yours in high school locker room talk.

Now let’s consider the folly of this attitude.

Those hiring often seek a name brand in the mistaken belief that the brand comes with a warranty that guarantees good results.

But no matter who you hire you’re actually paying for their past performance, which is always influenced by

• • circumstances—boss and company positioning in its market and industry
  • environment—culture and colleagues;

and let us not forget that minor factor

• • the economy.

The hiring mindset is that everything the brand accomplished was done in a total vacuum and dependent only on the brand’s own actions, therefore changing every single surrounding factor will have no impact on performance.

Put like that it sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it.

This is one of the prime reasons that so many CEOs bring their ‘own team’ over when they move, as do managers all the way down the food chain—they know they didn’t do it alone.

CEOs aren’t like movie and rock stars whose very names draw consumers into spending money—nobody ever bought a product from GE because Jack Welch was CEO, nor do they carry Jobs iPods—so why pay them that way?

Moreover, assuming that performance occurring during an expansion is a valid yardstick for performance in general, let alone a downturn, is sheer idiocy.

You have only to remember the difficulties faced by people whose management skills were honed between 1991 and 2000, the longest expansion in our history. When the recession hit in March of 2001 they had no experience whatsoever of how to drive revenue or manage in a down economy.

That recession and the previous one in 1990 lasted only 8 months each. The longest recession we’ve had was 2 years, January-July 1980 and July 1981-November 1982, and that one had a 12 month break in it. This means there are a very small number of managers with any actual experience managing in anything even close to what’s happening now.

The current recession officially started in December 2007, so it’s already 15 months old and the end isn’t in sight.

What experience makes these folks the ‘best and brightest’ for today’s world?

Just why the hell are companies still guaranteeing oversized compensation and exorbitant exit packages when now is definitely the time to pay for future performance—no guarantees.

Image credit: flickr

Over the last couple of days we’ve been looking at what makes workers happy.

We know it’s not fun and games or even money, so what?

Rather repeat the same stuff I’ve been saying for the last 11 years, consider what John Hall, co-founder and president of Calendar, says.

… workers aren’t liable to fall in love with a company over a handful of gimmicks and perks. … the things that really matter when it comes to sticking with an employer for a long time go deeper than decorations.

What are they?

Well, they aren’t rocket science — except to bosses whose heads are stuck in the past.

Here are four basic values, according to Hall (details at link), that are a good place to start.

1. Democratic Values
2. A Common Cause
3. The Freedom to Fail
4. A Culture of Improvement

See, not rocket science.

More about giving your team the same environment you wanted at some point in your working life.

Or maybe you just wanted to be promoted so you could treat your team as you’ve been treated by your own bad bosses.

My best recommendation is to look in the mirror long enough to decide which kind of a boss you want to be.

Image credit: Nichole Burrows

Poking through  13+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

I wrote this in 2012 and reposted it in 2015. The idea behind it is one the most important and viable concepts a manager (supervisor, team lead, executive) will (can, should) learn during their career. It is the difference between good and great.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

As companies grow and managers build their organizations they frequently talk about “weeding out” low performing employees—Jack Welch was a ninja weeder.

If that thought has crossed your mind you might take a moment to think about James Russell Lowell’s comment, “A weed is no more than a flower in disguise.”

As with weeds, there are better ways to look at under-performing employees.

Seeing a weed as food changes everything, just as seeing people’s potential does.

95% of the time it’s management failures that create weeds and those failures run the gamut from benign neglect to malicious abuse and everything in-between.

Weeds can come from outside your company, inter-departmental transfers and even from peers in your own backyard.

What is amazing is how quickly a weed will change with a little TLC.

“Weeds can grow quickly and flower early, producing vast numbers of genetically diverse seed.”

People grow quickly, too, and often produce innovative ideas just because someone listened instead of shutting them down.

And while trust that your attitude won’t change takes longer to build, the productivity benefits happen fairly rapidly.

So before you even think about weeding look in the mirror and be sure that the person looking back is a gardener and not a weed producer.

Flickr image credit: barockschloss

Poking through  13+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

We all have visual prejudices that have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender anything obvious. It’s important to know your own or you can’t hear past them. I worked hard to be aware of mine. I had no choice, because, back when I was a recruiter, I occasionally met my candidates. I vividly remember two of them, because if I had met them before I presented them and set up interviews I wouldn’t have, which would have cost me dearly, since both were hired (different companies). Why not? Because they both hit my visual prejudices.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Discrimination comes in many forms.

All of them are grounded in stupidity, but it’s age and appearance that I want to focus on today.

Layoffs are always a time when age is in the limelight, but this time it’s working in reverse.

“The share of older Americans who have jobs has risen during the recession, while the share of younger Americans with jobs has plunged.”

It seems that at least parts of corporate America have learned to see past the obvious.

“…employees whom companies have invested in most and who have “demonstrated track records…tend to be more experienced and are often older.””

So some companies have discovered that years of experience have substantial value when it comes to the success of the company.

But what about appearance? How much is hearing influenced by how someone looks at first take?

What better venue in which to consider this than the original British version of American Idol where the contestants are mostly young, generally good-looking and always bust their tails to make an impression.

How well do you think a slightly frumpy-looking 47 year old woman would fare under the scathing tongue of Simon Fuller?

How much do you think talent would offset the obvious visual assumptions made by both the judges and the audience?

Watch the judges and audience reaction carefully before Susan Boyle performs and how quickly it changes when she starts singing (embedding is disabled on this video); check out some of the more than 50 thousand comments.

Think about what happens when a “Susan” comes to interview; how well do you hear past her (or his) appearance?

Then come back and share your thoughts with us.

PS For a fascinating look at Susan read this article in the NY Times.

Image credit: cwsillero on sxc.hu

Think about this.

Since 1998, the US has seen employment rise by 22 million to reach historical highs. The main cause of this increase isn’t the dynamism of Silicon Valley or the entrepreneurial energy of Brooklyn hipsters. The vast majority (90%) of this increase is due to higher employment for workers aged 55 and above.

Unless you’ve been hiding in a barrel, the greying of the workforce won’t be news.

What does surprise many managers is that older workers are looking for the same things in terms of culture and management as Gen X and Millennials.

Which are pretty much the same things workers have always wanted and I doubt that will change with Gen Z or the generations that follow.

No matter the role you’re hiring for, if you are smart the candidate’s age isn’t going to affect your decision.

And if it doesn’t, then you have conquered one of the biggest hurdles to being a great manager.

Moreover, you will have fewer problems staffing, since you will have a far larger candidate pool to choose from.

Image credit: Amtec Photos