It's the truth! I swear!

In the wake of  former Yahoo! CEO Scott Thompson's troubles, many are asking "What's the cost of a lie that didn't have to be"?   For most of us, a lie about education on our resume or application does not yield a payment valued at over $6 million.  Yes, we might get back the dollar we put in the vending machine this morning for the strawberry Pop-Tarts.  Then again, why would we?  We are now known to the public as liars, people who lack integrity, and more importantly people who lied for no good reason.

In my HR experience, I've had the occasion to come across an employee that stretched the truth about their education.  The worst part, is that like in Mr. Thompson's case, the lie made no sense and was completely unnecessary.  Go figure!

It appears that people believe that claiming a degree that more closely fits the organization's product or focus makes them a better candidate.  Basically, they are saying, I don't trust that you will consider someone with limited education, so in order to make sure you choose me, I'll polish it up a bit, worrying about the truthfulness of the statement when I get caught.  So now we know...even CEOs get fired for lying. 

When I first heard the story, I wondered how Yahoo!  would resolve this.  No doubt the company has fired employees for falsifying their education.  No doubt they had intended for Mr. Thompson to stay with them longer than 5 months.  For Yahoo!, there was no easy way out.  Even though he's resigned in the midst of this scandal, the image to the brand and the executive selection practices leave people wondering, if the practices are so loose that they inadvertently encourage people to lie, what other lies does the company support?  Is my information really private?  Or are you just saying that so I'll feel secure?  

The next time you are tempted to say something that is untrue (and can be easily verified, by the way) on your resume, remember, you don't get a $6 million payout.  You'll be lucky to get a box to pack up your fake degree. 

Until next time.

Do HR folks train for education or information?

Yesterday, I was speaking with a friend about training.  Our conversation began about content delivery and how boring and static HR training seems to be.  Though he knew it from experience, it perplexed him as to why this was the case.  See, he is a phenomenal trainer.  He is very thorough and thoughtful in his content development and uses a variety of media in delivery.  He has shared with me some of the training he has created and delivered and I must admit, upon hearing about the topics, I was lukewarm.  Then he blew me away with his delivery and his ability to maintain a high level of engagement throughout the course.  So, you can see why, he struggled to understand why someone training HR policies and procedures would not strive to be engaging.  After all, aren't we the ones that guide our business partners to specific actions that generate high employee engagement?

I shared with him why I believe HR training does not seem to have much of a pulse.  It comes down to objective.  Typically, when one is training individuals on HR policies and procedures, the objective is to familiarize the audience with the content and give them resources to navigate through the issue.  The result: more lecture, less learning.

I too, am guilty of delivering training by showing a sterile presentation deck.  At times, I've linked to active intranet pages to show participants where to find the related information.  If I'm really feeling frisky, I'll throw in a survey, to make sure the participants are paying attention, or at least to interrupt their multitasking.  But as we were speaking, I had to ask, how have I contributed to bland, tasteless training and what could I have done differently.  Here are a few suggestions, courtesy of my trainer friend:

1. Make it interactive.  Even discussions about understanding ADA or local wage and hour laws can be interesting, dare I say, even exciting, if you bring people into the picture.
2. Reach outside the content area to connect everyday occurrences to the topic.  This may be easier said than done, but you can bet that participants will remember the content if you can connect it to something that seems unrelated and remote.
3. Check for learning.  When asked whether they understand, most participants will say they understand or just nod and agree.  The best way to know that there is understanding is to provide quizzes and tests throughout the course.  Remember our focus should be on learning not just the sharing of information.  

If HR folks do this in every training opportunity,we will become effective trainers yet!

Until next time...

Before you turn your nose up at that temp job...

Sometimes people think of temporary jobs as having limited value.  Well, before you politely decline to discuss the contract job that the recruiter has called you twice about, consider this.  A temporary or contract position is just as much an interview and screening for you as it is for the employer.  Things often look better during the recruitment phase of the process.  This gives you a chance to see if you will be able to deal with the micromanaging boss or the constantly complaining coworker or even if the selections in the cafeteria support your vegan lifestyle. 

More than that however, as companies look to better manage their human capital, you may find short-term opportunities showing up more frequently.  Carefully consider the project or task that is to be accomplished and how it may increase your industry visibility or give you local credibility.  An assignment like this should do it's part to grow your knowledge and stretch your abilities as well as put money in your pocket. 

Another consideration is reputation of the organization.  An organization that is well-respected in the community on your resume is almost like a Las Vegas billboard, it makes you look.  And that's exactly what you want hiring leaders to do. 

So, even though it is not permanent (by the way, no jobs are ever "permanent"), consider all the benefits before you say no.

Until next time...

Career Management v. Job Management. Which are you doing?

This morning during my 5am walk, I had a discussion with a neighbor about career management.  It really got me thinking about my own career and the question came to me, "Have I been managing my career or my jobs"?  I think I can honestly say, I've been doing both, but at different times.  Early in my career, I was managing my career, unbeknownst to me.  I was constantly seeking new challenges, which led me to an average tenure of about 18 months.  Then something changed.  I'm not sure whether I got older, more stuck in my ways or just longed for greater job stability.  When that happened, I stopped managing my career and started managing jobs.  For me, that was a mistake. 

When you manage your career, your focus remains on the work you do, the results you produce and leveraging those to meet the next challenge.  At some companies, this may mean asking for permission to post when you haven't met the required time in job.  It may also mean being open to short-term, temporary assignments.  Depending on your lifestyle at the time, this might include relocating.  It could also mean changing companies.

Conversely, when managing your jobs, your focus is on the next position more so than the work.   The downside to that is you become dependent on a company to produce the "right job" and the company's timing may not directly align with yours. 

So, as you go throughout your day, ask yourself, "Am I managing my career or my jobs"?  I'll bet it might even help you prioritize your tasks, but I'll save that for another post.

Until next time...