I have personally [...]]]> After more than 200 episodes, the oddly quirky and debatably successful sitcom “The Office” came to an end last week. Even for those who didn’t watch, it was clear that the premise of the show was to unearth the totally inappropriate goings-on in the workplace, leaving viewers gasping, “Did that just happen?”

I have personally enjoyed writing about sociopathic TV bosses through the years, by mostly characterizing what not to do around leadership in the real world. The truth is that while entertaining, “The Office” did provide an honest acknowledgement of real topics that go on in the workplace, from office bullies, to motivation, to performance appraisals and diversity training.

Someone recently shared the following with me:

These {projects} were due yesterday. Getting these {projects} has been like pulling teeth! I am not a dentist and it pains me greatly that I have to work so hard to get this group to do their JOB! I scratch your back and most of you leave mine itching! If I responded in kind to the support that I receive from most of you, we’d have a mutiny. This is really getting OLD and, quite frankly, embarrassing to have to treat some of you like a school kid who isn’t turning in homework. Stop the excuses and be the professional that I know each and every one of you to be.

No, it’s not an outtake of a deleted scene from the show; it’s a real email from a real manager to his team. A reminder that, for as much as is written about workplace culture and morale, effective leadership and employee engagement, the reality is that the antics of “The Office” are still alive and well in our own corporate environments.

While “The Office” tackled real workplace issues with honesty and humor, I don’t recommend re-enacting a scene from the show through your own actions and behaviors. Instead, here are a few tips for effectively managing others and avoiding mistakes common to television bosses:

Know the reinforcers of those who work with you. Every employee is different and therefore what is reinforcing to one may not be to another. Don’t make the mistake of giving public praise to an employee who prefers to stay under the radar in the workplace.

Be clear in your direction. Communication is key if you want employees to deliver what is expected of them. Be sure they understand what is being asked of them and that they have what they need for success. Don’t leave it to them to figure out and then be upset when your expectations aren’t met.

Walk the talk. If you ask employees to bring problems to you, don’t punish them when they do. Lead by example and treat employees as you want to be treated, and as you want them to treat each other.

Celebrate successes. Take time to relive accomplishments when they happen. By discussing the actions that created the result, employees are reinforced for what they have done and will be more likely to do more of it in the future.

Admit mistakes. Acknowledge and assume accountability for your own mistakes. Don’t make excuses or shift the blame to others.

You may also be interested to read these articles related to TV bosses: Our Fascination With Sociopathic Bosses and Oops! The Biggest Mistakes Made by TV’s Top Bosses.

What’s more, because of the size of these organizations, inconsistencies and errors [...]]]> Having consulted and coached organizations of all sizes, from Fortune 500 to small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), I have found a few things to be consistently true. One notable and frustrating observation: recruiting efforts so often fall short within small and medium-sized businesses.

What’s more, because of the size of these organizations, inconsistencies and errors are amplified with a less forgiving margin of error.

Large and small organizations face different challenges when it comes to the talent acquisition process.

As HR consultant and writer Sharlyn Lauby writes in her blog, “There are some instances where smaller companies might have a slight advantage. For example, when it comes to flexible work and work environment, small companies have the advantage. They also fare slightly better when it comes to employee retention. Larger companies tilt the scale when it comes to resources. Obviously, being bigger means they do more volume and get dedicated resources for their efforts.”

Here are a few points on what I’ve learned and how we have advised HR leaders to improve their recruiting processes:

One or two people trying to be all things to everyone. At SMBs, the designated HR folks are often left having to run the search process, manage the searches and still serve in traditional administration roles. There is no shortage of work to be done or fires to be put out, leaving them in a constant state of reaction. They are stretched too thin to develop a deep pipeline for any role — and, as a result, the overall quality of the candidate pool suffers.

No process or infrastructure in place. For this, think in terms of manufacturing. To successfully manufacture a product, you need a plant, machines, tools to work on the machines, people to run the machines and an engineer to keep it all optimized. In recruiting, an infrastructure is also needed to optimize the recruiting process. Many SMBs are lucky to even have an applicant tracking system, while others are left to function with only email and spreadsheets. SMBs also lack a clear brand, careers website, people to source and seek out candidates, any specialization among recruiters or not enough recruiters in the first place. And with no one providing oversight to the process, success is difficult to achieve.

Business leaders don’t think staffing is their job. Given their workload and other priorities, it is easy to understand why SMB leadership doesn’t include recruiting in their purview. They often resign all staffing responsibilities to the designated HR people, thinking the recruiting function will just magically produce people. Often, without the proper infrastructure, HR is forced to go through an outside agency to attract talent. Costs inevitably rise, leading to frustration at the top.

It’s not all doom and gloom, though. With a little planning and focus, SMBs can turn around and tighten their in-house recruiting function and understand where their needs are for outside help. There can be value in retaining an RPO firm for some functions of the process. I’ve written about best practices in engaging an RPO here.

For many companies, the CEO believes that talent is the key to success in growing the company. Therefore, he or she wants to have an in-house recruiting function. I believe it all depends on your company’s core capability. If your CEO has an obsession for talent, then build this core capability in-house — but do it knowing you need to invest in resources to enable not just recruiting, but the processes and technology that are needed to make it work in-house.

Build a clearly divided infrastructure that gives one or a few people the role of recruiter, ensure you have adequate sourcing support and make sure you have technology to leverage in building your candidate pool. Remember, every leader has to see him- or herself as part of the recruiting team.

Also, clear communication and process buy-in from upper management will go a long way to build efficiencies and confidence among the recruiting team. It is likely company leadership just doesn’t understand the delicate nuances of attracting leading talent.

For another resource, Monster.com’s John Rossheim wrote a great piece on four recruitment strategies to expand your small business hiring.

Have something to share? We would love to hear how your organization has optimized its recruiting function.

Dave has a law degree from a fine California university. He is outgoing and personable, and wants to use his law degree as a springboard to an HR career. He has no work experience in HR, but [...]]]> Yesterday, I  was talking to a bright young man from California on the phone. Let’s call him Dave.

Dave has a law degree from a fine California university. He is outgoing and personable, and wants to use his law degree as a springboard to an HR career. He has no work experience in HR, but has worked for two years as a contract lawyer. He is willing to take a pay cut and start at the bottom in HR, and any HR department would be lucky to get him.

He literally can’t get in the front door anywhere. Computerized hiring programs are standing in the way.

The modern American economy contains a paradox. There is a glut of talent on the market, but companies everywhere report a shortage of skilled applicants. Intellectually lazy CEOs like to go on TV and complain that America isn’t producing people with the “right” skills, but the real culprits are their very own HR departments and applicant screening programs.

Peter Cappelli is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. He has written a book you need to read: Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs: The Skills Gap and What Companies Can Do About It. One of his main theses is that applicant tracking software has replaced human judgment in the hiring process and great candidates are being eliminated and jobs are going unfilled because of the way job descriptions are being written. Cappelli described the process in an interview: “(Traditionally) you asked a hiring manager to create a job description. There would be an HR person there to help him do it or to push back if they had requirements which were crazy or out of whack with the market. Now those folks are gone, and basically, those wish lists of hiring requirements get baked right into applicant tracking software.”

Why isn’t having a “wish list of hiring requirements” automated a good thing? Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about it: “(HR downsizing) has led employers to further automate hiring — and to become incredibly specific about experience and skills they seek. Screening software weeds out anyone whose application lacks particular keywords … Managers pile up so many requirements that they make it nearly impossible to find anyone who fits.”

Computer programmers live in a strange, binary land of 1s and 0s. If any answer on your application doesn’t match what the program is looking for, the whole thing is kicked out and the game is over. Think “Donkey Kong.” Application screening programs aren’t looking for talent, they are trying to cull the online pile of resumes. Rejection is what makes them tick. Too bad if they might be rejecting the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

In fairness to HR departments, the discipline has been under incredible pressure to downsize and outsource for years, and being able to computerize the initial screening process has many advantages from a time and money standpoint. Also, some job seekers are far too promiscuous in their job search, blanketing the landscape with applications for jobs they aren’t remotely qualified for.

But too many are like Dave, great candidates for any number of openings who don’t have a chance without lying to the program (a very bad idea, by the way), or becoming experts at gaming the system. This isn’t right, and it needs to be fixed. How? Broaden your job descriptions. Invest in hands-on recruiting and resume screening. Network better (if you are in any size city in the U.S., a good candidate for one of your openings is five minutes from you right now). Take in-person applications. Use search firms and hiring agencies. Encourage employee referrals. Go old school.

And fire the hiring computers.

1. Promote Internally vs. Hire Externally: Which Is Better?: Consider these best practices to help select the best leaders, and also to ensure their [...]]]> Research shows that sunny days are made better when reading these top five stories from Talentmgt.com for the week of May 13. OK, that’s not true. But read them anyway.

1. Promote Internally vs. Hire Externally: Which Is Better?: Consider these best practices to help select the best leaders, and also to ensure their effectiveness and retention. David Brookmire, an executive adviser, researcher, author and authority in leadership effectiveness, has more.

2. The Face of the Future Workforce: Demographic projections suggest minority groups will become the majority in America earlier than expected. How will this affect the labor force and job market? Talent Management editor Jennifer Kahn has the story.

3. Rutgers: A Metaphor for the Business Bully: Basketball coach Mike Rice is just an example of someone who continued doing what he was being paid big bucks to do even if it was wrong, says blogger Aubrey Daniels.

4. Job Seekers Another Culprit in the ‘Black Hole’ Effect: Most job seekers spend as little as 50 seconds reading job postings, according to a recent study. The lesson for recruiters: Keep it brief and to the point. Talent Management editor Frank Kalman has more.

5. A Blueprint for Success: Use personality assessments to identify the traits that set top performers apart. Herbert Greenberg and Patrick Sweeney of Caliper Corp., a global human capital management assessment and development firm, have more.

In Other News …

Probably my favorite office story of the year. For most people working in offices, lunchtime is a generally uneventful peanut butter sandwich at their desk — OK, maybe that’s just me.

But as The New York Times reported last week, some New Yorkers are opting for a more exciting lunch-hour activity: hitting up the dance club scene.

If your a fan of great journalism, the story’s lead-in is an example in great storytelling:

“When lunchtime comes around, Laurie Batista often grabs a salad near the Flatiron ad agency where she works as an executive assistant and eats it at her desk.

But shortly after noon on a sunny, 65-degree Friday in April, Ms. Batista, 31, jumped into a cab with three co-workers and headed west to Marquee, a nightclub on 10th Avenue. After waiting in a line that wrapped around onto 26th Street (and attracted the attention of the police, who wanted to know what was going on), she redeemed a drink ticket for a free cocktail of vodka and fruit punch. A half-hour later, she was wearing purple lensless Wayfarer-style glasses, waving a footlong foam glow stick and mouthing the words to Warren G’s ‘Regulate.’”

1. Millennials: Let Us Into the Workforce: By 2020, millennials are projected to make up half the workforce, but why do they still face grim job prospects? Talent Management editor Jennifer Kahn has more.

1. These Soft Skills Can Go a Long Way: While they may not appear in a leader’s official job description, some soft skills can help connect leaders with employees at [...]]]> I can’t think of a better way to prepare for this weekend’s Cinco de Mayo celebration than reading these top five stories from Talentmgt.com.

1. These Soft Skills Can Go a Long Way: While they may not appear in a leader’s official job description, some soft skills can help connect leaders with employees at a deeper level. Paul H. Eccher and Dave Ross, co-founders and principals of The Vaya Group, a talent management consultancy, have more.

2. Lessons From Executive Crazy Talk: These quotes may on the surface seem like crazy talk, but can actually provide food for thought for today’s talent manager, writes Talent Management columnist Kevin D. Wilde.

3. What Is the Best Job in 2013?: Newspaper reporter, lumberjack and military personnel top the list as this year’s worst jobs, according to an annual report. What jobs are the best?

4. Use Brain Science to Drive Change: Utilizing brain-based change methodologies can result in businesses being able to apply change deliberately — increasing the predictability between effort and outcome. Reut Schwartz Hebron, founder of Key Change Institute and author of The Art and Science of Changing People Who Don’t Want to Change, has more.

5. Results-Only Work Environment? It’s a Leadership Problem: Yahoo and Best Buy would benefit from treating work at home, even when the job will permit it, as a privilege, not a right, writes blogger Aubrey Daniels.

In Other News …

As high school students continue the process of choosing a college for next fall, many are pondering what academic major to pursue. Well, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal this week, the college major might not matter as much as you think — at least when it comes to a career.

******

Also, is your boss a psychopath? Fast Company has the quiz to find out.

1. Your Boss Asked You to Do What?: Nearly 23 percent of workers reported that their bosses have asked them to perform tasks that are not related to their jobs, according to a recent CareerBuilder study.

2. [...]]]> These top five stories from Talentmgt.com for the week of April 22 will make you smarter. Guaranteed.

1. Your Boss Asked You to Do What?: Nearly 23 percent of workers reported that their bosses have asked them to perform tasks that are not related to their jobs, according to a recent CareerBuilder study.

2. Look Beyond Raises to Engage and Retain Talent: A recent study predicts salaries will rise sharply in emerging markets but remain flat in developed countries. This means finding other ways to keep workers motivated. Benjamin Frost, global product manager at Hay Group, has more.

3. At the Corner of People and Business: Walgreens’ Kathleen Wilson-Thompson | Profile: Walgreens CHRO Kathleen Wilson-Thompson is building an HR infrastructure to support the organization as it rebrands itself into a global health care and retail company.

4. Mobile Recruiting Apps: A Gimmick or Here to Stay?: Some recruiters are leveraging mobile apps that promise to save hiring managers’ time and money, but are these new technologies effective in actually finding top talent? Talent Management editor Jennifer Kahn has the story.

5. Study Aims to Confirm and Dispel Myths about Millennials: The clearest finding: Millennials, as do other generations, want more work-life flexibility — and they are willing to pay for it.

In Other News …

To the excitement of human resources professionals across the globe, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer finally broke her silence on her ban on working from home at the technology company.

According to Fortune, Mayer, speaking at an HR conference, decided to address the elephant in the room — quite literally, with a giant, purple elephant appearing on the screen beside her.

Mayer said Yahoo’s move to end work from home was “wrongly perceived as industry narrative,” and that “it’s not what’s right for Yahoo right now.”

The remarks come months after proponents of telework lambasted Mayer for ending an arrangement largely common in the tech industry. The move was first reported when a internal memo from Yahoo’s HR head announcing the shift was leaked.

According to Fortune, the policy shift affects roughly 200 of Yahoo’s 12,000 employees.

******

According to a report this week in The Wall Street Journal, securities regulators are “seeking to carve out exemptions in state laws that would allow certain financial firms to sidestep bans on looking at the personal social media accounts of employees.”

The report continues: “Securities regulators worry that the raft of new laws aimed at protecting employees’ privacy puts investors at risk. They say the fast spread of financial advice on social networks such as Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. could create new channels for Ponzi schemes and other frauds, and that fighting those frauds will be harder if state lawmakers snarl efforts by companies to monitor what employees are pitching to investors.”

Fair or foul? What’s your take?

By now, you probably know [...]]]> Tiger copped a plea. Given the opportunity to conduct a gentlemanly withdrawal from the Masters after a serious rules violation – and do much to rehabilitate his battered image as club-tossing, F-bomb dropping philanderer – he hid behind a technicality: “(they) say I can keep playing, so here I am.”

By now, you probably know the story (no, not about his divorce). During this year’s Masters golf tournament, one of the most prestigious in the world, Tiger committed golf’s capital crime by signing an incorrect scorecard after taking an illegal drop of the ball. It wasn’t the cheating you might see over beers during a round at your local muni, like kicking your ball back into the fairway, and probably was unwitting. It was against the rules, though, and when he signed his scorecard without adjusting for a penalty the deed was done and irreparable, regardless of the fact no one at the time had complained about the drop.

At least it had been irreparable since the beginning of golf time. It is the moral backbone of the sport. Two years ago, however, the Lords of Golf introduced a little-known escape clause to the rule allowing tournament directors to waive disqualification in “exceptional circumstances.”

“Exceptional” meaning whenever golf’s biggest star and money maker is about to be tossed and TV ratings are on the line, I suppose.

I’ll give the tournament directors, members of the venerated Augusta National Golf Club, a pass on this one. The club doesn’t need the money and it will be around long after Tiger – and CBS, the broadcaster of the tournament – are gone. They were the ones who invoked the double-secret rules exception and offered it to Tiger. But I have to think, when they put on their green jackets and called him into the office before Saturday’s round, they expected him to decline their offer and withdraw. As probably most of the great golfers of history would have done. Golf is that sort of thing.

Tiger demurred.

A blog about arcane practices and moral codes among a bunch of “One Percenters” might seem to have little connection with the modern workplace, but think about times you are faced with a decision that may or may not hurt you, but involves a matter of right and wrong.  A star salesman turns in a receipt for a small amount that will pass with accounting but you can tell is fake – do you blow the whistle and start a firestorm; maybe lose a client? You mistakenly get singled out in a big meeting for a memo that you didn’t write but no one will find out – do you say something? Do you lie to protect a good friend, if nobody gets hurt? Believe in no harm, no foul? The slope gets slippery.

Take comfort that these are not easy questions; they would cause much disagreement among moral philosophers. Some argue there is a right and wrong thing to do in most situations and a virtuous person should choose accordingly, without regard to the consequences. Others view decision-making quite practically – if more people benefit from an action than don’t, or if an action doesn’t hurt anybody, go for it. Thomas McGovern, a professor who taught ethical philosophy for years at the University of Virginia and a serious golfer, strongly disagreed with me when I expressed to him my opinion about Tiger: “to argue that Tiger should have self-declared himself DQ — for whatever justification — is fraught with contradictions … I could argue this point from Kant’s categorical imperative perspective, or from a utilitarian ‘greatest good for the greatest number of people’ perspective, or perhaps even from Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance.’”

OK, got me there – I was planning to rely upon the philosophical musings of Arnold Palmer and Byron Nelson.

Maybe I labor under a “veil of ignorance,” but I stand by my opinion. Tiger should have withdrawn, as they would have done. The ethics and moral code of golf required it, regardless of the fact that millions of people wanted to see Tiger play on the weekend.

Do the right thing. There is a reason they call it that.