jessica lee writes.

What Happens When You Talk to One Another...

it's kind of cool watching a junior person develop. in some instances, you help them and prevent disasters you once had to recover from, and in other cases, you see them learn some of the same lessons you learned along the way.

my bosses mantra? let people fail. how else are they supposed to learn? in our business, we're not saving lives. there's not a human cost - so we allow for failure to take place although it's hard, for me at least, to make decisions about situations where i should or shouldn't intervene. i'm learning to let go some though.

an interesting lesson i've seen unfold right before my eyes recently? dealing with managers or people generally who fish for information. you know those types - right? they call you with a question - you give them an answer. they don't like what you've shared so they call one of your colleagues asking a question, hoping for another answer. sometimes they call above you, sometimes they call around you - but they call around. they may be trying to build a case. they may be trying to build allies. they may be desperate and afraid to admit they made a mistake or have dug themselves into a whole. and so they look for information. and sometimes, they'll even take some of what you said, manipulate your words slightly, and try to work that into receiving a different answer from your colleague or manager.

"but jessica said..."

or they'll take pieces of what you said, pieces of what your colleage said, pieces of what your manager said - select pieces from each story they heard - and construct a tableau that fits nicely into their reality. it's so convenient to do that, you know?

i've been there before, trapped in that situation - but you can only let that happen once. so to avoid it? communicate. even if it means over communicating. i like brnging everyone together - one big happy family all in the same room. "i want to make sure we're all on the same page and that there's no confusion..." is how that conversation always starts out. it's uncomfortable. you can watch people's eyes shift so as to avoid piercing stares. but a funny thing happens when people talk to each other - without an agenda, without any manipulation, with complete trust and sincerity. you get on the same page - you uncover the manipulators and cheaters. you uncover those information fishers who are trying to work their way around you or twist your words into an outcome they want but maybe isn't right. and slowly, those information fishers start to feel caught, trapped and you begin to pick away at their game.

so talk. talk loudly, talk frequently, but talk. and you'll cover the truth.

Digital Communication Skills?

i work for a PR firm by day and this means i mostly recruit communications professionals. you must be able to write well and communicate messages clearly to hack it in our industry. we evaluate prospective hires for their writing skills, and on the job, we work to constantly refine and develop writing and speaking skills. all we have is our word, after all.

through the hashtagsocialmedia UnPanel i moderated earlier today, the idea developed that perhaps it's not going to be only written and verbal communication skills that we evaluate and prize in the future though... instead it might be :

• written communication
• verbal communication
• digital communication

this trio, and simply the idea of digital communication being a new skill or competency is interesting to me because as social media tools infect organizations more deeply, there are certainly questions and concerns about exactly how you cultivate a culture that's ripe for social media... and there are always immediate concerns of whether there's a digital divide and whether a lack of technical skills will be what stops one from successfully implementing, scaling, and using social media tools. but technical skills isn't really the issue, is it?

you don't have to know how it works to operate in a culture of social media - you just have to be willing and able to use it... so it's more a notion of digital literacy or simply skill in digital communication that you need to cultivate. i scanned the web real quickly to find a definition of digital communication as a competency and my findings were a bit sparse, but i did come across this bitty, as it relates to educators: effective digital communication is the ability to create persuasive communications in different media, be it websites, video, audio, text, or animated multimedia. it's the ability to conceptualize, produce, deliver, and receive such communications in your job and life. it sounds like a good definition to me... but it will be interesting to see how digital comms as a competency matures in the coming years.

Implementing Social Media In Your Organization - A Twitter UnPanel

i am beginning to believe that one of the biggest factors in using social media successfully is simply the willingness to jump in and play. you're reading my bloggy - so that's a good first step. another step forward? come and play with me tomorrow via Twitter! at 12pm EST, i'll be moderating an UnPanel via twitter through hastagsocialmedia.com and we'll be focusing on actionable steps to implement social media tools within your organization - whether it's to recruit, build your employment brand, or facilitate greater internal communication.

here's the idea behind using Twitter and this UnPanel... you've probably attended a conference before and realized that it's the wisdom of the crowd that often makes the experience rich. you share with the people around you, regardless the topic, and learn from the real experts - actual practitioners. and the UnPanel plays into that same notion by cultivating ideas from the experiences of participants - just via Twitter though - to create true value, and actionable steps for everyone. we all talk a lot about social media, and there's endless analysis... but our goal through this one hour UnPanel will be to share practical steps for creating a culture that's ripe for social media.

all you need to do to jump in on the action? click here to join the event and watch as the discussion unfolds. you can watch from the sidelines as the tweets start flowing, or you can join in by making a comment or asking a question - just don't forget to include the hashtag "#social media." afterward, the guys behind hastagsocialmedia.com will post an event summary which will be archived.

so here's what we'll be tweeting about - and don't forget, you'll be the ones who actually make this work -

• to create an organizational culture that is ripe for and adopts social media, how are you addressing the digital divide with both employees and customers/clients?

• in the social enterprise, what are the skill sets, attributes and values that your employees must embrace?

• what items are needed to create an action plan to adapt your corporate culture for social media? who needs to be involved in decision making?

and that's pretty much it! want to learn more? want to add your thoughts? join in with me on this little experiment. hope to see you there.

Getting Called Out By Suzy Welch... Accountability in Social Media.

when the Oscars were on a few months ago, i had to stop looking at my Twitter stream because i was so thoroughly irritated with some of the things that people were saying about celebs as they were walking the red carpet. criticism for their outfits, makeup, hair, body shape and weight... it was too much for me to handle. i had to sit on my hands because i so wanted to reply back to some of the prolific Oscar-commenting tweeters i follow on how i thought it was completely outrageous that they'd criticize about celeb's looks when the reality was that they aren't so gorgeous or fit themselves. really. i mean, i've met some of my social media friends in real life. and i don't want to sound like a total b!tch, but, let's get real. who are we to criticize like that?

sure, there's the argument that because they are celebrities and have chosen to be in a career that puts them in the spotlight, they should have to deal with such scrutiny - but i don't like that argument. i think it's mean. and i think social media can make it too easy for us to criticize and say things in quite a bold fashion when i'm pretty sure that if we were face to face? we'd never imagine saying these out loud to those individuals. and don't get me wrong, i'm not completely innocent myself. i was reminded recently of this when Suzy Welch saw something i tweeted about her and called me out on it. oops. the tweet:

and then the conversation that followed.

the entire exchange with Suzy made me pause. i don't know if i ever thought that she, or Jack Welch, would have seen my tweet or would have addressed it for that matter because often with social media, you put stuff out there without any consequence. and that mentality? the lack of consequences are dangerous. it makes us irresponsible for our words. and what a good reminder for how disgusted i was on Oscar night with the junk i saw on Twitter.... because my sh!t talking about her byline really wasn't that different, right? some additional thoughts as a result of that little exchange:

• social media makes people accessible. this is good, and cool... but...
• social media creates faux intimacy. just because you can see and read about what i'm up to, or what a celeb is up to, doesn't mean you have a relationship. if you don't step away from your computer and take the "relationship" into the real world? it's not a real relationship. so, no, Suzy Welch and i are not all of a sudden friends now.
  
• social media makes people bold. hiding behind your computer, you can say anything. particularly if you're anonymous, you feel like you can say anything and go after anyone. but that's cowardly. the person you are going after and/or making fun of or criticizing? they're real. they're human. but because you can hide behind your computer and  you're not willing to filter, it also means that...
  
• social media, or the internet, could be the end of empathy. a close pal sent this letter to me a bit ago written by Jason Calacanis, former blogger and web pioneer, about living in "public" and how the internet could be causing the end of empathy. it's a really, really compelling letter, and i think anyone involved in social media must read this.

i'm willing to commit to conducting myself in a certain way online... and when i falter, i certainly hope people will continue to call me out. but are you willing to commit to the same? 

How Infectious Are You? Your Attitude & Their Confidence.

whenever the time comes for my annual reviews, it's always been interesting to see the development areas that my managers identify for me. i'm smart, i work hard, i show up every day... so i'm pretty much perfect. (okay, not really.)

earlier in my human resources life, it was to expand my knowledge and experience in various functional areas of HR. then came working more on my professional presence and my level of comfort with pushing back on managers (not always being a "yes" girl). now days, i'll be honest, i struggle at times with details - tracking stuff, paperwork... i don't love it and so i've faltered at times, plus, add in that i'm not the most organized gal in the world (i pile, i don't file). this isn't a good combination, so i'm working on it.

but another thing i've had to work on over the years? it's kind of an attitude issue. when i don't like an idea, or when i'm not enthusiastic about a project? i'm not great at hiding it, and i have trouble rallying. to be clear, it's usually within the construct of my team that i let it show. i've become masterful at being "diplomatic" with non-HR peeps, with my company's leadership, with candidates. i've got an awesome poker face. i'm your gal, and i'm the consummate pro. but when with my team? i do let my hair down a bit, and i don't exactly hide my feelings... and the trouble with this? it's infectious. or rather, i'm infectious.

the first time a manager shed light into this, i was a little taken aback. me? infectious? it was eye opening to think of myself in this way... but she said that when i was excited about a project or initiative, others on our team would take their cues from me. and that of course, is a positive. but if i were displeased and highly critical about something, even if i offered alternatives, my colleagues would take note of that as well, and she observed that they'd often adjust their viewpoint because she felt my attitude was infectious. and being infectious? it seemed to her that it came with some responsibility - and i had no idea.

i sometimes still forget about being infectious, and about the need to manage my viruses. today, for example? a coworker said to me, "it's good to have you back." and i knew exactly what she mean when she said it. i've not really gone anywhere, but when the new year rolled around, this same colleague had commented a few times that there was a marked difference in my attitude. i was laughing less at the office, i was quieter. and that was true - i was trying to keep my head-down, plugging away and just doing work, work, work so as to stay under the fray. i figured in this climate, i'd be more about the business, and all business which somehow translated to taking on a fairly serious tone.

but then i heard it from another colleague, this time, a fairly a senior member of my firm's leadership. it was freaking him out that someone on the HR team was so quiet all of a sudden. what did i know that he didn't know? should he be concerned too? he even went so far as to think that maybe layoffs were coming and that's why i was so quiet. if his usually friendly HR gal was quiet and so serious all of a sudden... something was up, he thought.

and how wild is that? for a member of my firm's leadership team to take the shift in my attitude and use it as a barometer for whether we might be laying staff off (which we weren't) - it was eye opening... and it reminded me once again about being infectious.

in the past month or so, i've figured out how to find a balance. i've realized that i can only control so much so i'm continuing to work, work, work - but i've made a come back of sorts. i'm not head down, stay beneath the fray anymore - i'm laughing a lot again. i'm enjoying what i do and the people i work with, and i'm managing what's in my realm of control and being proactive where i can... and i'm not worrying what isn't in my control (like for the most part, the entire economy!). and for my colleagues? they see a difference. and they're happy to see me back. and i'm happy to be back too. i'm controlling my viruses and i'm infecting the atmosphere around me, positively.

so how infectious are you? and how are you managing your viruses?

(PS - an oldie but goody from Harvard Biz on infectious leadership.)

Goals vs. Commitments.

i saw an interesting "tweet" the other day from my friend Laurie Ruettimann who writes the blog Punk Rock HR and is attending the Spring ERE Expo in San Diego (non recruiting/HR peeps... it's a recruiting conference...) and it was in response to a presenter from Microsoft who discussed using the term "commitments" over "goals" for employees and their professional growth. and it made me pause... because I kind of think this is brilliant.

goals are transactional, for me at least. think about it. when you set a goal and you achieve it, then what? you move on. you set a new goal. commitments are lasting, and renewable. when you make a commitment, it's more deeply rooted. i think commitments are more than likely tied to your fundamental values, to your core, to principles. goals aren't crucial but for me, commitments are. when i give you my word, i keep it. and giving you my word means a lot. so between the two - what do you want your staff to make? and when it comes to your own growth, do goals really mean anything to you in the long run? what would making commitments look like instead?

when i think about goals that have been set for me in the past:

• reduce time to fill by 10% this year.
• implement quarterly people management reports for executive team that includes key metrics, staffing data, etc.
• evaluate and implement enhancements for applicant tracking system.

check, check, check. done. but those weren't lasting. if i were to sit down and make commitments though:

• deepen relationships with line staff (not just the managers!) in business units i support.
• invest more in my personal development and learn more about x, y, or z.
• work on developing junior HR staff or increase outreach to HR students to help them see how HR can be cool and sexy.

of course, these commitments are "bigger picture" and lack specific action items - and smaller goals could be set to support each of them. but making commitments over goals feels different - do you see it? i could find ways to align my commitments to the business too - but at the end of the day, the commitments tie back to my own core values and principles and because they are tied to my values, i'm more likely to act upon them and take them seriously. seriously.

Laurie writes a bit more about this matter this morning saying she believes that you are not paid to commit, and you should really think about the emotional capital you invest in your job... but if you look at your job as simply just a job - and not a career or an investment for your future... well, i guess goals instead of commitments would be just fine to you.

what say you?

Cash Ain't Everything. Total Rewards, Baby.

now more than ever is the right time to be thinking about total rewards. you may have a freeze on salary increases. some of your staff may be obsessed with cash because what was in their 401k six months ago isn't there anymore - but isn't what you offer to an employee so much more than just their cash compensation?

for me, work lately has been completely consumed with a project to revamp our total rewards communication. the centerpiece of this is a new total compensation statement on steroids - and we decided to do it all in-house. what a good project, especially given that my recruiting workload has been... dismal. and i've learned a good deal in the process of managing this project - about taxable fringe benefits, taxable income, setting up macros in Excel, mail merges in Word... and it's been an exercise in my project management skills given i'm pulling data from my benefits, HRIS, payroll peeps, as well as an exercise in my attention to detail (which i'm not well known for, honestly). 

the statements go out the door in the next week or so - and tomorrow is a final QA session with my team to make sure all the details are right. we'll go over all the data and draft statements with a fine-tooth comb... but essentially, we're there and done. perhaps a tool kit for others will come of this for others to be able to do this in-house as well... it's sweat equity but there was a significant cost savings by doing it in-house. and well, i've never seen a total comp statement that i liked the look of anyways. check out what i ended up coming up with for the design: 


in the red section is gross salary, bonuses, incentives, rewards (including miscellaneous recognition gifts). we also detail out all of our "other" perks in green which includes training/professional development stipends, a home computer stipend, parking/transit reimbursements... the benefits portion in purple details out our costs (versus the employees costs) for benefits including group insurances, social insurances... and the blue section includes leave benefits including the value of leave. the orange circle in the middle has their total comp package and pulls it all together. pretty nice, yeah? i'd say so. to carry this forward, i'm thinking that we include a mock statement for new staff so they understand their total comp and earning potential... if not that, doing a mock statement for candidates when making offers so they really understand the complete offer being made to them. we've got our branding game on and are stepping up how and what we communicate to our staff... how about you?

How We Talk About My Company.

every so often, i have my CEO teach a class for our staff on how to talk about our company. sounds a bit basic but it's amazing how many people struggle with their elevator speech. (seriously! quick - what's your elevator speech? see!) the goal of the class is to give them one more tool for their business development tool box and the class is geared towards our junior or new staff. 

i wonder though... how many people spend time teaching their recruiters or HR staff how to talk about their company? we talk about recruiting tools and techniques all the time - but is that enough to be a good recruiter? and do we ever institutionalize the process and teach recruiters how to talk about their organizations? afterall, i know you too believe recruiters or HR pros as employment brand marketers is crucial.  

no elevator speech is the same - and every situation warrants a different version, but the stuff to consider teaching your staff about how to talk about your organization (and recruiters, listen up): 

• know who you are talking to. an elevator speech is good - but not everyone gets the same speech. know what they do and what their priorities are. 
• understand and respect their organization and their current business partners (your competitors). no one likes someone who doesn't listen, and no one likes a trash talker. enough said. 
• adjust capabilities. maybe your company sells a hundred different products or offers a dozen different services like mine. don't share everything - an elevator ride is short. get to the point and share what's relevant. 
• check over your shoulder. who else is in the elevator with you? can you say what you're going to say? what if someone else hears? know your surroundings.  
• watch, connect, seek follow-up actions. not all elevator speeches will come of something. are you making a connection? is the person digging you? if so, find a way to follow up... otherwise, leave it alone. 
• integrity + chemistry = partnership. relationships are a two way street. for an effective partnership, there has to be some chemistry. (back to watching, connecting and seeking follow-up actions.) 

and for some consistency in how we speak about our organization (brand, brand, brand), we also teach staff key words to use. even better though - how we've come to teach staff to talk about the company is based on client evaluations and surveys. we developed a value proposition tool after an extensive process of gathering client feedback and analyzing from their perspective how we spoke about ourselves, how they wished we spoke about ourselves, and how they speak about us. who better than to listen to, right?

when developing junior recruiting staff, i always spend a good chunk of time on the art of the interview. forget the tools... those will always come and go. to be a good recruiter, sure, you need to be able to make sure the skills are there, but i want you to make sure the fit is right and to do that, you've gotta be well versed in how to talk about the job we're recruiting for, present the position in the context of the team it's on, speak to where the role fits into the context of the company and discuss what this role means for the bigger picture or the future of the organization. bad recruiters focus on just the position, good recruiters can paint the whole picture for a candidate. 

so how do you talk about your company? 

Management Lessons from Gladwell & the Teaching World

i joke sometimes, but am half serious most times, that HR is like babysitting. managing people is like babysitting. sure, we're all adults... yet in the workplace, the minute shit goes wrong, it seems we regress, and slip backwards towards childhood... and all the vulnerabilities and neurosis we have come out. "he took my toy!" or "i want what she has!" it's pitiful. but we're all human, and imperfect. so somehow, we've got to find a way to make it work. if only people weren't so complicated.

i seem to continually draw parallels between the teaching world and everything else - and something of Malcolm Gladwell's i read recently in the New Yorker on predicting success got me thinking again:

"Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material."

that's pretty astounding, isn't it? think about that in the context of managing people. what if under a bad manager, people were half as productive? and what if under a very good manager, people were one and half times more productive? put in those terms, doesn't that make you pause and think a bit about how you recruit for managers? and how you develop them once in the door?

back to Gladwell's piece and what makes a good teacher. according to some researchers, he writes that credentials - like a teaching certification or master's degree which are expensive yet expected for "good" teachers to obtain (and in most schools systems, they are better compensated for) - do not seem to make a difference in the classroom. shocking? not really, i hope. so what does matter? one trait that seems to bleed through the veins of all great teachers, Gladwell shares, is an ability called "withitness." sounds like a self-explanatory term, but let's break it down:

• being aware perceptually and cognitively what is going on in the classroom
• perceiving the needs of students with accuracy and care
• responding quickly to unexpected events including changing the pace in a lesson, moving about the room
• interacting with students in an effort to redirect and refocus attention and learning

in other words, it's being able to "communicate to children through actual behavior (rather than by verbally announcing: ‘I know what’s going on’) that he/she knows what the children are doing, or has the proverbial 'eyes in the back of her head.'"   interesting stuff. and i think withitness for a manager would be very similar.

so how would you evaluate your withitness? and is "withitness" something you can recruit for? if so, how would you spot it and evaluate it? and how you coach and develop managers to have withitness? just something to think about.

Over @ Fistful of Talent - Confucious Says... Cultures (and Candidates) Vary In Their Willingness to Negotiate...

the other week, on Fistful of Talent, i wrote about how culture impacts one's communication style. specifically, we were discussing pay negotiations and my take was that as HR pros, we should be cognizant of the fact that not all candidates can and will negotiate. the conversation that followed the post in the comments section was great. receiving feedback from readers is something i enjoy - in particular though, getting people talking about intercultural comms was awesome. something that i wanted to repost here was in response to a comment Kris Dunn from the HR Capitalist wrote. KD commented,

"How many times did you negotiate today? I just counted and came up with four. And if I didn't do it, I would have been tire-tracked and ended up with poor results.

That's a learned skill over time. Like you and I talked about recently, I came from VERY private parents - you didn't ask others for things, you made do with what you had. That's my family, and it gave me some great qualities to be successful with in life."

KD made an excellent point to which i responded that something i came to the realization to about four years ago was that if i was raised culturally to be one way but in the business world, that way didn't jive, or that in order to be successful i might have to act another way... it wasn't necessarily compromising myself to act the "other" way, different from how i was raised.

it was a bit of an internal struggle coming to that realization because i thought 1) perhaps i was being fake if i acted differently (asked for more, upped my negotiation and selling skills, boasted and shared proudly of my accomplishments, etc...) and 2) i wondered was part of the problem that the "western" ideal for "leadership" and corresponding traits or competencies for success were one sided. were people disrespectful and discounting that some people may come from other cultures and that there are different ways to accomplish the same goals?

i definitely have been able to find a balance and put to rest that struggle. i've accepted that who i may have to be in the workplace and during the day in order to be successful might be just a role, and they just might be rules to the game i play during the day because i've chosen to partake in that particular game... but it doesn't compromise who i was raised to be, and i can be my true self when i get home and in my personal life. i'm okay with this now but it wasn't always comfortable and it took some sage wisdom from a mentor as well for me to get to this place.

this kinda came up last night as it relates to my personal life. people who meet me professionally first see me as one way and expect me to be that all the time... but the truth is, i don't always need to be alpha-female, i don't always want to be in control. i would rather just get in the back seat and let someone else drive. if i trust you, if i want to try to build something with you, i will let my guard down and i'll allow myself to be vulnerable. but how do i let people know that me during the day turns off when i get home? does that make sense? that's not just something you come out and say, is it? i just raise this because i've met fellers who worried that personally, we might struggle with one another because we're both too headstrong, too driven, too assertive, too controlling.

just some additional thoughts on this matter...