A Change to the Blog (and Where You'll Find Me)

As many of you know, I've struggled with what this blog should be. It's changed over the years, from being an outlet for my thoughts; to being one focused on supreme customer service (or the lack of); to an update on job search techniques.

I've done book reviews, run some pop culture tournaments, and spoken about my hobbies.

Ten years ago, this might've been fine; but today, successful blogs have more singular focuses.

So, starting in a week or two, I'll be posting most of my "professional-type" posts to LinkedIn. I was approved to be a publisher on the site (which means a *whole* lot of people will be able to read me in the future). I'm looking forward to some great conversations.

I'll focus on internal communications, customer service and -- for now -- the job search.

This blog won't go away; from time-to-time I'll be cross-posting stuff, and I actually have a few blog posts in the hopper; but it will definitely be less 'professional' and more pop culture. I'll keep the professional stuff on the LinkedIn page; and the more fun stuff here. Don't worry, it won't turn into a ghost town (inside joke).

Starting in July, I'll also be upping my use of Twitter and Google+ (and, most likely, by default, Hootsuite), as I have loads of interesting content I've accumulated that I'd love to share, once I get a system and process in place.

Obviously, I'll keep you all posted -- along with new links to my LinkedIn author page and my other social media channels.

Chris' Rules of Business

From a communications perspective, the past half-decade has been quite the whirlwind. Employee engagement, an area in which I specialize, sometimes took a backseat to dealing with the economic fallout.

In the past year, employee engagement has become more important (a recent poll estimated that roughly 85 percent of all workers are disengaged to some level – that should be *extremely* troubling for businesses).

Through my experiences, I came up with a number of “Rules of Business” – tips I consider to be business truisms. Six of them are listed here. They’re not all entirely mine; but I’ve made them mine, as much as possible.

The first is an individual rule (one I try to follow, myself). In your communications – with employees, co-workers, supervisors and even externally with customers – you will often have to make a decision.

1. Is it better to be “right” or to be “productive”?

We’ve all been there. We’ve listened as someone speaks and we’ve heard them say something we *knew* was incorrect. At that moment, we’ve had to decide – is it important to be “right” (showcasing ourselves as the more knowledgeable party) or is the better option to be “productive” and keep our mouth shut?

That sort of decision-making can be vital in terms of personal growth. It’s a variant on the old “Pick your battles” mantra; but there is a difference. It’s important to consider the way you are perceived by your audience. A client could easily be turned off by someone who continually corrects information in a meeting. Sometimes, the more productive approach in many situations is to not say anything (as much as it pains us) until we have a less-public forum.

Heck, even if your CEO says something wrong in a meeting, he (or she) will probably be far more grateful if you point it out in private after the fact, and then he can address it more gracefully. Plus, it’s rare that anything said *immediately* becomes unchangeable. There’s always a better way to handle something than to correct or point something out in public (especially when an outcome is to diminish someone else).

2. There is no such thing as a “One Size Fits All” policy.

The Cincinnati Reds of the mid-1970s were a dominant team, with four perennial All-Stars (Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan). The manager, Sparky Anderson, realized his best players deserved to be treated differently. Each year, in Spring Training, he delivered a speech, where he let *everyone* know he had different rules for his star players.

I’m not endorsing that sort of thinking – where companies line up everyone who works for them and state, explicitly, some workers are going to be treated differently than others. However, the inverse is also true. Too often, I’ve seen companies writing employee handbooks that create a zero-tolerance policy with no exceptions. In its zeal for creating an airtight, legally binding document, that spells out every nuance of expected employee behavior, the company paints itself into a corner and – worse– begins to chip away at employee morale.

At one company, employees were forbidden from having any food at their desks. Why? Because, in the past, some employees hadn’t been the most meticulous in cleaning things up; and there had been issues. So, yes, that’s a great reason; but it’s insulting to those who already have that level of conscientiousness. And, moreover, it breaks Rule #3.

3. Treat people like adults; hold them accountable as adults.

Talented employees – who have graduated college and are looking to make a difference – really enjoy being treated as adults.

At one job, I was making a case for communicating the company’s sales numbers in the internal publication. I heard the expected objections – “What if someone inadvertently shares the information?” “Aren’t we giving them too much information?” I answered each objection successfully. Then, someone asked, “What if someone shares the information intentionally?” I immediately asked, “Why would you have someone working at this company that you feared would do that?”

Is it a risk? Sure – but anecdotal evidence greatly supports the concept that treating your workforce like mature adults pays off far more than spoon-feeding them. A bigger risk is seeing your best workers walk out the door.

4. Life is a bell curve (the 10-80-10 rule)

When you look at most data (or human behavior), clusters begin to emerge. The vast majority tends to bunch up in the  middle.

When I moved into the world of communications, I had the pleasure of attending a conference with Steve Crescenzo as a presenter, and he outlined his version of the 10-80-10 rule, where (as he says), 10 percent of the people in your organization *love* you – you can do no wrong in their eyes; they bleed the company colors. 10 percent hate you, and they hate everything about you. They’re psychopaths, and they hate their lives, their wives and their dogs. Nothing you can do will be good enough for them. And, effectively, both camps are influencing that middle 80 percent (and, this is where a good communications director is vital!)

At my last company, I created an employee engagement survey – the first of its kind for the company. When you first administer a survey, unless something dramatic appears, those results serve as benchmarks. As I analyzed the results, I noticed “employee trust in senior leadership” qualified as dramatic.

I tell people to initially expect 10 percent negative feedback, since this fits into the 10-80-10/bell curve theory. When “trust in senior leadership” exceeds 40 percent negative, there’s a definite problem. Thankfully, we do surveys to learn about these problems, and – one year later, when we redid the survey, we reduced that number by more than two-thirds.

5. Good managers tell the “what” and “why” and listen for their workers to tell them the “how”

No one likes to be micromanaged. The younger generation of workers is even less inclined to be interested in that (remember, these newer GenY and Millennials – in many cases – grew up with both parents working. They didn’t necessarily work harder than their previous generations; but they certainly worked with less guidance.

You may be noticing a trend in these “rules” – treat people like adults. Moreover, there’s a definite need for managers to take a step back from looking to control everything. Hire good, quality workers and reap the benefits.

At my last company, the CEO had moved up to the role from an earlier position as director of sales. One day, we were walking by the Sales “inbox” and he took out a few orders and started looking them over. Wistfully, he said to me, “I used to do this every day. I used to look at every order that came in. I don’t get to do that anymore.” I replied, “Good! It’s not your job anymore! You’ve hired a great director of sales; let her do her job, and you do the CEO’s job!”

6. Just because someone is good at their job, doesn’t make them a manager

And, this certainly ties in to the previous  point. This is a pretty common occurrence in America. You’ll have a front-line worker who is absolutely phenomenal at their job (maybe something like data entry or order processing ... even a sales rep), and – eventually – they’ll want more – more pay, more responsibility, some combination of both.

Now, they’re *great* at their job – the tactical part of it – and the company doesn’t want to lose them; but, unfortunately, they’ve already moved up the ladder as high as possible in terms of salary bands. They’ve reached the top salary for whatever position they’re in.

And, rather than raising the salary band, most companies will do the worst possible thing: promote the worker to a manager level.

Now – I’m breaking my own rule. There *is* no one size fits all; and I don’t mean to generalize. On occasion, some workers get promoted to a manager level and they thrive. But, most of the time, the company hasn’t properly developed them to take on a managerial role; and it’s even less likely the company has even evaluated the colleague to determine if he or she is even suitable for a managerial role.

So, in the cases where it’s not a success, what happens It’s a failure. The colleagues resent the new manager, who loses their support. They are unable to strategize or lead or motivate, and now the company has a choice – do they demote the worker back to his earlier role (which is awful, obviously); or do they let the worker go – and, in doing so, they’ve lost that phenomenal tactician they were so happy with, earlier.

I’m certainly not saying no workers should ever be promoted – far from it. But, companies will do far better by investing in their colleagues and developing their colleagues; setting up personal development plans that start to get both the colleague *and* the company, thinking about a career path; and *then* considering whether to promote the colleague to a leadership level.

That is true engagement.

Obviously, none of these tips can stave off the catastrophic impact of an economic recession, which is what led to the universal abandonment of employee engagement in the mid-2000s. But, as we continue to recover, a greater risk may be emerging – the exodus of workers due to a lack of engagement.

True employee engagement is far more strategic (and complex) than what I’ve outlined here; but these first steps are a necessary foundation of beginning to create a more engaging workplace.

Why I'm Happy My Favoite Team Lost in March Madness

It's no secret my favorite sport in the world is college basketball; which makes this time of year (the NCAA tournament) easily my favorite time for spectator sports.

I'm also a big fan of college football; but I like the setup of college basketball better -- too often, by the time Bowl Week is wrapping up, I'm burned out from watching games that don't really have a meaning. With college basketball, *every* game matters -- from the conference tournaments (the two weeks preceding) through the NCAA tournament. Win and continue; lose and go home.

I've been watching the NCAA tournament -- basically *every* moment of it -- for the past 30 years. I've taken vacation time to ensure I don't miss any of the games in the past. And, I still have great memories of some of the fantastic teams and tournaments I've seen in the past.

My favorite team, year-in, year-out has been Duke University. I became a fan back in 1986, when they lost to Louisville -- they had a great team of Johnny Dawkins, Tommy Amaker (now the coach at Harvard), Mark Alarie, Jay Bilas (an analyst on ESPN). Since then, I've rooted for Duke in every tournament (even when I haven't filled out my bracket to have the win).

So, today, Duke lost to Mercer 78-71. With four-and-a-half minutes to go, Duke led 63-58. Most smaller schools would wilt -- they would see Mighty Duke, with its multiple McDonalds All-Americans and future NBA players and they'd simply shudder. Instead, Mercer - the *only* school to start five seniors every game this year - did just the opposite, going on a 20-8 run to end the game, fully in control.

It's always sad, for me when Duke loses, because I have such respect for Mike Kryzewski (who, even after this loss, was incredibly gracious to the opposing coach ... he realized his team had been out-played and he was modest (and confident) enough to admit it). But, I have to admit, today; if Duke *had* to lose, I'm glad it was to a team like Mercer.

One of the biggest changes in the NCAA tournament (and college basketball, in general) has been the growing trend of players spending fewer than four years in college. For a while, several players jumped right to the NBA from high school (Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, among *many* others) -- and recently, that changed to mandate players *must* spend one year in college (or, more accurately, *out* of high school) before they're eligible to be drafted -- and many players have excelled in the NBA after spending only one year in college.

But, when I look back at the iconic figures in the history of the NCAA tournament, they all have something in common:

Ralph Sampson
Clyde Drexler
Hakeem Olajuwon
Patrick Ewing
Chris Mullin
Steve Alford
Danny Manning
Christian Laettner
Bobby Hurley
Grant Hill
Bo Kimble
Corliss Williamson
Mateen Cleaves

All of them played a MINIMUM of three years in college - with most playing four years.

Now, look at the NBA draft today ... for the most part, you'll see 2-5 seniors drafted in the first round. The last senior drafted in the NBA draft that is an impact player today (and we'll use "impact" liberally): Kenneth Faried and Chandler Parsons -- both drafted in 2011.

The last senior drafted that became an all-star? Roy Hibbert, drafted in 2008.  

And, if you want to go back to the last player drafted, as a senior, that has even a *remote* chance of
ending in the Hall of Fame one day, you're probably going back to Shane Battier, drafted in 2001; Andre Miller/Jason Terry, drafted in 1999 ... or, more realistically, Tim Duncan, drafted in 1997.

Think about that. It's been 17 years since a probable Hall-of-Famer was drafted as a senior.

I'm not saying it's a bad decision for players to go to the NBA -- money is money; and why would you want to wait? But, for the purposes of *this* article, I'm lamenting the change in the NCAA tournament, which is *directly* attributable to the lack of seniors. When you spend four years in a program, with other players who have spent four years in the program, then you build up an amount of confidence and camaraderie.

It's that confidence that led a team of five seniors to look at the scoreboard, see themselves down by 5 with fewer than five minutes in the game, against Mighty Duke, and -- instead of wilting, somehow went on an offensive spurt (scoring 20 points) while holding a team comprised of former All-Americans to only 8 points.

I don't think today's loss will change anything. It proves that players need more time in college to win a championship (or, in some cases, get out of the first round); but -- ultimately, do I look at someone like Jabari Parker and think this loss will humble him? Or, will he bolt for the NBA and millions of dollars, looking back at Duke as nothing more than a one-year stop en route to potential fame and fortune? It's a shame -- he's 19 years old, and instead of getting to live like a god (like the people above, enjoyed, through their college careers), he has to miss out on that great experience so he can make his money (and, more importantly, probably, so the people who have *invested* in him can make their money, as well).

I'm sad Duke lost; but I'm happy it was to a team with five seniors. As someone who truly loves the NCAA tournament, and longs for the fantastic storylines (and rivalries!) of the past, I hope it does make a difference. I can dream.

Job Seeking? Leave Humility and Modesty at the Door, Please ...

Whew ... it's been a long time since I blogged. I had one topic in mind; but it's a little more pop-culture than business-focused; and I didn't want to return from such a hiatus with something as meaningless as pop culture.


This morning, I was thinking about the irony of job-seeking versus being a great employee. Those very traits that make someone an exceptional employee are not the ones that convince an organization to hire them in the first place.

What do I mean? Well, simply stated, most companies seek out employees that will always put the company's needs first. Even salespeople (who need to exude more confidence than the average worker) still should never lose sight of the company's mission and goals (although, again, with sales, many of those goals are achieved through sales goals).

And, I like to think I fit into that category. I've been fortunate to have the ear of several executives during my professional life, and none of them would ever say I ever recommended anything that benefited me, exclusively (or, more to the point, *didn't* benefit the company).

Yet, when it comes to interviewing and job-seeking, humility and modesty is not a welcomed trait. If you cannot speak effusively about yourself, your skills and your accomplishments, you're perceived as not being a strong candidate.

And, for someone like me (true story: I was asked in an interview what one word best described me and -- without hesitation -- I said "modest"), that can be a challenge.

Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that most of my "accomplishments," I simply considered to be "my job." To me, even if I do my job exceptionally well, it's still my job (and should be done to the best of my capabilities). So, to go into an interview and spew out all these great things I did, just feels insincere to me.

I'm not without confidence ... but, being confident doesn't necessarily mean talking yourself up. I leave most interviews convinced I can help the company achieve its goals and that I can handle the responsibilities of the position (and deliver exceptional results). Anecdotally, I can point to my previous positions: Look at where the company was before I got there; look where it got *while* I was there; and look at where it is now that I'm no longer there. I can assure you, the differences are stark.

The other difficulty comes from the fact that -- rightfully so -- interviewers want to learn what led to your accomplishments. And, again, I consider it just my job. I go into a company; learn the product/service or the culture (depending on my role and focus); and then I ensure messages reach the target audience in the way intended. Whether I'm creating the messaging or editing it or advising someone else; the important piece of the puzzle is making sure the audience *hears* the message the way it was intended. If they don't, the failure lies with the message and message sender  (*not* the audience).

But, ask me to describe the minutiae of how I do that, and I'm probably going to be a little flustered. It's not something I've ever analyzed (despite the fact that I pride myself on being meticulous and methodical). In some ways (and I'm not comparing myself to him, necessarily), it's similar to the plight of Ted Williams.

Ted Williams is arguably the greatest baseball hitter of all time (I can make a case for Ty Cobb; but that's another blog!). After his playing career, teams wanted to hire Williams to teach *their* players how to hit; which was a great idea on paper. Problem is -- Ted couldn't explain how he hit, and he certainly couldn't teach anyone. To him, it was as simple as: see the ball; hit the ball; and it worked. Ask for more details than that, and you'd be sorely disappointed.

One of the reasons I've built up my network so much (and that I've tried to actually *meet* as many of the people in my network as I can), is because there are few things in the job search as powerful as having someone talk you up to the company to which you've applied. Sure, I can apply for a job online; but if I know someone who knows someone at that company, and my contact is able (and willing!) to tell the person what a fantastic addition I'd be; and how I can help transform their company ... well, that accomplishes two things: First, it's an incredibly meaningful recommendation (and, honestly, you can't have too many of those!); and second, it takes the pressure off of me.

Then, I can focus on simply being a modest and exceptional employee.

A Disconnect Maybe? (HR vs. Hiring)

I do quite a bit of reading, especially when I'm job-seeking, since I feel it's important to keep skills up-to-date. Most of my reading is professional-based -- in the communications arena -- but I also make a point of reading job-seeking and HR blogs (to get a better idea of what hiring managers are looking for).

I came across this blog from Careerealism a few weeks ago, and, although the topic line didn't pertain to me too much, I still wanted to look it over.

One thing struck me completely, as a disconnect:

"When you’re in an interview, you’re being evaluated on three things: Personality, Aptitude, and Experience. What is outdated about job application these days? You send a resume with your past experience on it! That has almost nothing to do with your personality or aptitude, because it’s very hard to have them shine through (even on a great resume)."

So, hiring managers and HR folks admit that personality is the most important aspect in hiring a new employee,  yet, we've simultaneously seen a monumental growth in the usage of applicant tracking systems (and, more damning, scanning resumes for keywords to determine if the applicant should even be advanced to have his/her resume viewed by an actual human).

Wow.

I cannot blame the companies for this, entirely. With unemployment (and, more damning, *under*employment) at all-time highs (for my lifetime), what is the alternative? To interview hundreds (maybe thousands) of applicants, just to check on personality? The easiest way to cut down the number of interviews needed is to find some way to eliminate candidates; may as well be via something automated (so, I can set a filter that will eliminate 90 percent of the applicants, if they don't have a particular skillset or keywords on their resume).

I know the post says to use networking to pave the way; but I've found that's not necessarily a magic bullet. I know there have been situations where I've called upon my network to tap into their connections. That has rarely paid off the way this article suggests (even though my personality and aptitude are vouched for by my network). Ironically, I see those same positions re-posted repeatedly, so, perhaps ignoring the personality and aptitude and focusing entirely on what the computer scanning and tracking system advises isn't the best way to fill the role, either.