A colleague sent me this article which encourages us all to get hip to the dangers of jargon. According to a survey by YouGov, 40+% of people think phrases like “blue sky thinking,” and “getting our ducks in a row,” makes bosses look “untrustworthy and weak.”

But, perhaps even more interestingly,  people apparently have this stuff on the brain, because someone else sent me this clip from the Wall Street Journal talking about the next set of annoying words we all will be using shortly. Here’s the scoop:

Jargon OUT:

rightsizing, digitization, war for talent

Jargon IN:

delayering, web 2.0, knowledge acquisition, unsiloing

I guess it all sort of depends what world you’re living in – I don’t sense that “war for talent” is on the wane. Not even a little bit.

You don’t often find HR related stories on page six of the New York Post, but alas – this is why life is interesting. Last week, employees at Capitol Records shot off a letter to the company’s parent, EMI, blasting their CEO and President, Andy Slater. The letter accuses the CEO of ignoring the label’s core acts like Bonnie Raitt, and wasting money on worthless up and comers. The letter complains: “This man is a control freak . . . How much longer do we need to make sure he is happy – only to then see those choices fail?”

How fascinating it is to see such employee complaints become so public. In the past, employees would talk to HR or to their peers, or just quit. But today, with publicity just a click away, perhaps we are witnessing the start of a new trend in employee complaints. No longer content to suffer in silence – are employees now elevating their causes to the court of public opinion?

Recently, I published a post called Die Necktie, die - about why it’s time to discard the necktie as a component of the business wardrobe. It was one of the most discussed posts in a while – with people taking both sides of the issue. So I wondered what would come back if we asked all of you for your thoughts. Hence, the newest poll: “Does the necktie still have a place in today’s business environment?”

Check out the left column to answer and see the results so far.

See the results of our last poll on open salaries here.

A rather illuminating rant on the state of tie-wearing ensues over at the UK’s guardian. Apparently, the number of professional men wearing ties has dropped 14% over the last 10 years to 56%. This still seems too high to me.  If get a vote on the topic, I say die tie, die. All ties. No exceptions.

I once had a job where I had to wear a tie. I felt as if, at any moment, someone might walk over to me, grab said tie and lead me around the office by it. Like the reins for a horse. Not to mention the airflow restricting qualities. In fact, according to this wikipedia history of the tie, there are other health related reasons to abandon the tie including “entanglement, infection, and vascular constriction.”

Don’t get me wrong, I respect that there are certain situations in which the formality of a tie is appropriate. I’m thinking of weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, deal closings. crucial client meetings and other such instances.  Where the show of respect conveyed by the formality is important. But as a regular, day in, day out kind of thing – the impracticality of an otherwise purposeless slip of colorful fabric seems quite silly. To my mind, it adds to the perception that how you look is more important that what you do. Rubbish.

What’s the consensus, do ties still have a place in the workplace? Can anyone make the argument FOR ties?

A Note: this post was written by a guest writer, and does not necessarily represent my opinion. That said, I think it’s important to host a variety of thoughts and perspectives on the blog and thus, I give you the following article written by Jake Adger of SuccessFactors. It is in response to an earlier guest post entitled “From Our Research: Teamwork is a good thing. Sometimes” As always, please feel free to comment, we want to know what you think.

A book I read over my recent vacation brought up an interesting idea – task specific competency requirements.  This is a very intuitive idea but one that doesn’t seem to be embraced by the job competency models that are often implemented by HR.  A recent post by our own Erik Berggren on the SuccessFactors blog pointed out that teamwork is a competency that is more important in some tasks than others.

Discussion of the complexity of successful M&As in Winning by Jack Welch focuses mainly on the relative importance of teamwork in M&A situations.  He says basically that a merger of equals is impossible because forming such a team of equals leads to paralysis in merger integration.  In merger integration situations there is always a balance between heavy handedness by the acquirer and consultation with the acquired company.  Too much heavy handedness can kill the culture and decimate the talent pool of the acquired company.  Too much consultation can lead to indecision and wasted time.

(more…)

That’s the conclusion from our most recent blog poll in which we asked “At your company, do employees who do a better job get paid more?”

The results break down like this with the far larger group (58%) of respondents saying No.

It’s not scientific, but it is interesting. Seems to me that the likelihood of one being fully engaged in their job if its felt that others are rewarded more richly for doing lower quality work approaches zero.

Another argument for some sort (any sort) of pay for performance program.

New poll coming shortly.

If you’ve stayed current on Harvard’s leadership difficulties involving President Lawrence Summers’ rocky 5 year tenure, you know that he recently conducted his last commencement. (If you haven’t stayed current, I don’t blame you. Not even a little.)

One would think that Harvard might have seen the writing on the wall around January of last year, when Summers made his feelings on women in the sciences known. That would have given them a good 18 months to start thinking about a succession plan. Alas, this seems to have been far from their minds.

A Harvard alum sent me this letter he recently received soliciting thoughts and opinions on Summers’ replacement. Innocent enough in its appearance, it reveals a fairly serious lack of planning. Have a look. Click the image to blow up a section of the letter.

It’s remarkable how many organizations of every kind don’t think about succession until they’re headless.

From Booz Allen’s strategy+business (and via recruiting.com) comes this article on “Rethinking the value of talent.” It’s a great article, but it’s a little boring, so I’m going to illustrate the point by telling a story that expounds on one in the article.

The tale of Barry and Leverne: Colliding Canapés
By Max Goldman

Barry and Leverne work together at Creative Canapés Internationale. There, they each craft delectable, treats that are a lot like hors d’oeuvres. They would call them hors d’oeuvres, but they found that because “canapés” sounds less familiar and more European, people pay more.

Anyway, the company, located in Mechanicsville, Virginia and run by one Colin Craftsbury (a gentle, witty sort of British fellow who moved to the US to be closer to his college sweetheart though sadly that didn’t work out as she was married by the time he got himself across the Atlantic), is doing fantastically well.  Their small, innovative crispy food is fit is for royalty and often delivered to people who consider themselves as such. They are widely regarded as the best premium-European-small-party-food company for miles around.

(more…)

I’m just kidding, but this perspective is played-out already in my opinion.  Anyway, Keith Hammonds, executive editor of Fast Company and the writer of the now infamous “ Why we hate HR” article participated in a podcast (audio program) at landed.fm.

The most interesting part for me was when he related the vacation policy at Fast Company. It says, “you should take at least three weeks of vacation a year. If you think you need more, you should take that, too.”

It’s an enlightened approach that puts the responsibility for getting things done in the hands of the employee. Everything else is secondary. Not every company can handle this kind of thing, but it supports what seems to be Hammonds’ underlying message: HR should not be a bureaucratic, rule making group. It should strive toward “less rules and more exceptions for exceptional people.” What Hammonds calls a “more thoughtful approach to Human Resources.”

It’s about 30 minutes and worth a listen if you’re a glutton for punishment interested in hearing some tips from an outsider about what HR can do to be more impactful.

Here is a link to the original rage-inducing article.

Here’s an interesting article called “Americans work more, seem to accomplish less” that prompted an equally interesting discussion on the TRDEV Yahoo discussion group. The gist? Whether the mere act of measuring performance itself has a negative impact on employee morale, and thus productivity.

A quote in the article from John Challenger of Challenger, Gray and Christmas explains the perspective: “there’s a trend among companies to measure job performance like never before. There’s a sense that no matter how much I do, it’s never enough,” he said.

To me, it brings us back to the importance of communication in the change management process. If employees understand what is expected of them and what the benefits TO THEM are, the likelihood of positive change is increased. 

What’s your reaction?