Working With Fools

Companies Face Talent Gaps... gee, I wonder why?

They Ponder Layoffs,
But Executives Still
Face Gaps in Talent

by Carol Hymowitz
The Wall Street Journal
January 28, 2008

Much to my curiosity, but of absolutely zero surprise, the above titled article appeared on the front page of the Marketing section in today's Journal.  It certainly doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out why companies today are facing gaps and shortages of talent.  I could quickly rattle off at least without much thought at least half a dozen sources causing this sad phenomenon.  To go into all of them would require a book on the subject so, I'll spare 'ya all the gory details.  However, allow me to at least briefly broach the topic and hit on some key points that come to mind.

The first point is that one of the reasons good people are leaving companies is they are not being adequately recognized for their good performance.  Most corporations have performance systems which promote mediocrity - the reward (financial and other) difference between high and low performers is often nearly imperceptible.  That eventually pulls workers toward mediocrity.  After awhile, the good performers begin to ask, "Why should I continue busting my hump?"

The final point I want to touch on with regard to talent gaps is that, in many cases, THE TALENT IS THERE, it's just not put to good use.  Some reasons: the wrong people are doing the wrong work (this is my personal situation currently), the organization is not designed or aligned for optimal performance, absence of vision, mission or direction.

There is an underlying, yet fairly obvious common thread to the causes of the talent gap I've cited.  It's all about LEADERSHIP or lack thereof!

Another Issue We Office Schmucks Encounter: Filtering

As I lay be bed last night, a Saturday evening, I looked forward to the coming week with a bit of relief.  Ms. Gruff will be out of the office Monday through Wednesday on a boondoggle  -  one of her periodic "business" trips.  She'll be at an industry conference in sunny Tampa Florida while the rest of us schmucks are stuck here in the frigid Northeast, many of us addressing the tasks she is simply too busy (or unable) to address.  I certainly can't deny it'll be a relief to have Gruff out of the office for a few days, many hundreds of miles away.  On the other hand, I'm a bit miffed!  However, it does bring to mind an issue I have not yet raised -  something I've dubbed "filtering".

What I'm miffed about is that Gruff "filtered" out my request to go to the conference she's attending this week.  You read correctly -  I submitted a formal Trip Request to seek approval to attend the Florida conference; and Gruff apparently never routed the request up-chain for approval by the manager and director.  What a bitch she can be (sorry for my blunt english)!  For Gruff to attend this conference is a 100% pure "boondoggle", i.e. a waste of time, of absolutely no value to the company.  It's essentially a paid vacation to Florida.

I'm not going to lie and claim my attendance would not have had some boondoggle component to it; it would have.  However, there would have been some value for me and the company if I had intended.  I would have learned some things and applied them!  There is no such chance of Gruff doing the same!

Gruff "filtered" my trip request.  In this particular instance, Gruff exercised what is the most severe form of filtering -  she blocked my request.  By doing so, she prohibited management above her from even knowing of my interest.  I know this because, had she not, I would have received the request back, indicating either approval or disapproval.

Filtering occurs frequently in MyCompany and, I suspect your's as well.  It's a behavior where management is looking out for themsleves and not necessarily in the best interest of their employees or the corporation.  Filitering is a real shame because it's de-motivator for the employee and has numerous negative effects on companies.

When I think of filtering, I have to wonder how many good ideas were raised by lower rank folks like myself, which never made their way past the next level of supervision.  Sure, many of the ideas may have been lame and were not worthy of further consideration.  However, I am certain there were other ideas - even if only a small percentage - which could have had positive results for the eneterprises.

Fool vs. Jerk - Whom Best to Hire?

Here's a summary and link to a Harvard Business Review Article:

Executive Summary:You are the hiring manager with a nasty decision to make. Would you hire the lovable fool or the competent jerk? This Harvard Business Review excerpt suggests that the decision is complicated. By HBS professor Tiziana Casciaro and Duke University’s Miguel Sousa Lobo.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4916.html

Office Arithmetic

This, emailed to me from a freind is simple yet funny and true...

Smart boss + smart employee =
profit

Smart boss + dumb employee =
production

Dumb boss + smart employee =
promotion

Dumb boss + dumb employee =
overtime

Humdinger of a Tale

As promised in my last post, I have an experience I want to share with you; it's a real humdinger, which supports my contention that this whole diversity thing that's been shoved up our corporate butts is a hoax.

A bit of additional background, beyond what I went into in the last post.  After catching a whiff of the Connecticut Minority Supplier Diversity Council, or "CMSDC" as it is fondly referred to in brief by its loyal, self-serving followers/champions, I heard they publish a electronic newsletter from time to time.  To satisfy my thirst for more knowledge about the organization, I Googled them, went on their website, and subscribed (anonymously) to the e-newsletter, News From CMSDC. Soon thereafter, I began to receive the letter on a frequency of about twice per month.  Each edition of the newsletter ends with the section, And Finally, written by a  gentleman named Dr. Fred McKinney.

In the fourth or fifth edition of News From CMSDC I received, Dr. McKinney's closing appeared as follows:

<>

<>

   

<>

<>

<>

<>

       

<>

<>

And Finally,

The photo of me with my Boy Scout troop got me thinking about that time in my life.  It is clear that there was only one White kid in our troop.  His name happened to be Murray White.  In addition to Murray there was another White kid who hung out with us, pitching pennies, collecting bottles, playing baseball, flipping baseball cards and getting into all sorts of mischeive.  His name was interestingly Jimmy Cool. And Jimmy I believe to this day was as African American as any of my darker friends, or so he believed.   So it dawned on me that the white kids who were close friends and the two families who stayed in our predominantly African American neighborhood in Washington DC were the Whites and the Cools.  If you reverse the names, the Whites who stayed in our neighborhood were the "Cool Whites".  (You can't make this stuff up!)  Now I don't believe it is necessary for Whites to know the words of every Smokey Robinson tune to be a friend to supplier diversity.  But is it not the case that majority executives in Corporate who support supplier diversity are cool?  The lesson of Jimmy Cool and Murray White to senior management within corporate America; is hang with us and you will find great friends, neighbors, customers, employees, and suppliers.                                             In your service                                             Dr. Fred

I found McKinney's message disturbing and plainly contrary to his and CMSDC's stated diversity mission.  So, I sent McKinney the followng email in reply:

Dr. Fred,
Frankly, I have been disappointed at the CMSDC eNewsletter lately.  I find many of the articles stray off course from the stated mission of the Council, which appears at the top of each issue.  You frequently use the letter as a channel to voice messages which foster divide between minorities and those you refer to as the "majority".  I particularly found disturbing your 'and Finally' column in the 10/22/07 issue, where you define your term, "Cool White".  As a white person, I take offense to your categorizations and labels.  I don't find this to be 'cool' at all.  Your column only serves to foster continuance of divide between white and non-white people.

You seem to be a man who enjoys pontificating lessons to others.  Think of finding a lesson for yourself in this.  How would you feel if you picked up the morning paper and read an article defining the term 'Cool Black' based on the degree to which Blacks support White initiatives?

Sincerely,
a White whom may not meet your definition of cool.

Well, let me tell 'ya, that response of mine ignited Dr. Fred into a frenzy.  He emailed me a nasty reply and, so began an email war which lasted for several days, with each of us replying to the other a dozen or so times.

I hope you can see the point of this post and my reaction to Doc Fred:  Here's a man who has made it his mission in life to advocate diversity.  Yet, in a very contradictory way, he is spewing prejudicial views toward caucasionns.  DIVERSITY STATED MISSION IS TO PREACH ACCPETANCE OF ALL PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, GENDER, ETC.  Is diversity only supposed to favor minorities?  No!

So, this is an example of why diveristy is a big hoax.  Its own advocates fail to practice wha they preach.They only want diveristy to work for THEM!  And, their definition of "working for them" is for them to receive special, preferential treatment!  Gee, I thought the tenant of diveristy was that EVERYONE should be treated the same.  Yeah, right!!!

The Root of Many Problems - Exposing the Diversity Hoax

Shifting gears, let's return to the topic of diversity, which I was the theme of two posts last month.  First, let me say that the timing of this post bears no relation to tomorrow being Martin Luther King Day.  My writing this piece is entirely coincidental to tomorrow's holiday, which memorializes a great man.

In my view, diversity is one of the chief and root causes for many of the problems I and many of you are facing in the white collar jungle.  To wit:  Ms. Gruff.  Without regurgitating all of the many examples I've shared with you previously in this blog, it's quite obvious the woman should not be in a position of management or leadership.  So, why is it that MyCompany has placed Gruff and many others like her in these positions?  In the case of Gruff and others, the blame must go to diversity!

In theory, workplace diversity sounds like a great thing.  I'm sure there are upsides and benefits to diversity.  However, I have seen and lived through many instances where diversity has had major negative fallout.  To place Gruff and others like her in leadership positions merely on  the basis  of their being  women  or  in some other minority group can create personal and organizational catastrophe.

And, unfortunately, diversity has spread its effect beyond the simple placement of people into leadership positions within companies.  Diversity also has lead to other initiatives within corporations.  Now, many larger corporations, such as MyCompany, have instituted "supplier diversity" programs which "encourage" (more at force), the purchasing of goods and services from minority vendors. In many states, there are nonprofit organizations whose mission it is to promote the use of minority vendors.  For instance, in Connecticut, there is a group called the Connecticut Minority Supplier Diversity Council (CMSDC) http://www.cmsdc.org/

And have I got a humdinger of a tale to tell you about CMSDC and its chief advocate, Dr. Fred McKinney.  Stay tuned!

 

Yippeee... I'm A "Fully Meets Expectations"

Going back to a theme started several posts ago, I want to end the suspense by closing the loop and sharing the results of my annual performance review given by my boss, Ms. Gruff.  As leaked by the title of this post, and to absolutely no surprise, the total score of my performance review landed me in the "Fully Meets Expectations" category.  I feel so relieved and fulfilled - NOT!

The total score is a summation of rankings in five "competencies", each on a 1 to 5 scale.  Understand though that practically no one ever receives a rating of 2 or less, or 5.  For to do so would require extra work on the part of the supervisor conducting the review.  What supervisor is likely to bestow extra work on themselves?  Not too many I know!  Rating someone 2 or less requires that the supervisor develop a corrective action plan for the employee.  On the other end of the spectrum, the supervisor must develop and present a case before a committee of his/hers peers in order to propose giving someone a five.  Given this background, I'll give 'ya one guess what 95% of people at MyCompany are rated.  If you guessed somewhere between a 3 and a 4, bingo, your right!  Between a 3.0 and 3.9 is deemed "Fully Meets Expecations", and between a 4.0 and 4.9 gets you into the esteemed category of "Occasionally Exceeds Expectations".  After 26 years of reviews, I received one 5 ("Consistently Exceeds Expectations") and all the rest were between 3.0 and 3.9.

I think you see the point I am making.  The whole system is rigged!  95% of the workers at MyCompany are artificially squeezed into the narrow Fully Meets Expectations Category.  Oh sure, some receive a 3.2, and others a 3.8; however, the end result is that practically everyone receives the same rating - Fully Meets.  The way I see it, this "system" does not achieve what should be its objectives -  a) rewarding good performance (encourage continued high performance) and b) penalizing poor performance (encourage change toward better performance).

Instead, MyCompany's performance review process encourages mediocrity among workers!  After all, why should anyone work hard if chances are they will receive a Fully Meets rating.  And, why should the poor performers change their ways, when they see they are being rewarded essentially no differently than coworkers who go the extra mile to accomplish and contribute more.

Some Humor To Help Us Survive The Fools We Work For

A Baffling Phenomenon - Leadership Void At Manager and Supervisor Levels

I often wonder, without reaching any sensible and complete and complete conclusion, why MyCompany is so completely devoid of leadership; particularly at the lower and mid-level supervisory and manage ranks.  Why and how do so many  people get appointed to these positions.  As best I can tell, most of them produce no meaningful results for the company.  If anything, the vast majority of supervisors and managers in MyCompany actually have a negative impact on the company of screwing so much up - from lowering morale to making poor decisions, to not making decisions.  At best, these fools are merely taking up space AND getting paid for it!  And, for what?  As I said I do not have the answer.  Perhaps some of you out there in cyberspace can shed some light on this baffling phenomenon.  I suspect the situation I describe is not unlike how it is in many large, bureaucratic organizations.

Actually I think I have part of the answer...
So many of the supervisors and managers at MyCompany, and I suspect your's too, got to where they are because of one or both of the following factors:  a) their performance in lower ranks, and b) whose ass they knew and how well they kissed it.  Therein lies the root of the problem:  it isn't possible to simply appoint someone to a leadership position  and assume they'll  make a good leader.  From my observations, good leadership can't be learned.  Rather, I assert, people who make good leaders have some innate qualities that are part of their inner self.

My Boss Who Sets A Pathetic Example

The Nor’Easter snow storm came in strong, but fizzled out. It was a tough, slow ride into work this morning, however, the storm ended by 9 AM for the most part. Everyone arrived to the office a little late but everyone’s here now; everyone except for one that is - Ms. Gruff, my boss. Aren’t folks in management supossed to be setting examples for the rest of us shmucks?

It’s become the topic of near daily joking in the office, Gruff’s work habits; her schedule in particular. Ms. Gruff seldom works a full, 8 hour day; frequently arriving late and/or leaves early. She has more excuses than Carter has pills. Gee, I wonder what Gruff’s excuse will be today.

Gruff lives in about 15 or 20 minutes away in normal traffic. In comparison, I live 45 minutes away. I made it here, albeit 15 minutes late, through the storm - why can’t Ms. Gruff? It’s after 10 AM now and we have yet to see or hear from Gruff.

Last week, on Thursday, Gruff emailed her “team”, informing us she had “personal appointments out of the office in the morning and expected to arrive to office around Noon”. Shortly after Noon, Ms. Gruff called in to say she would work out of her home for the afternoon. Must be nice – no one else has the privilege of working from home or coming and going as one pleases! And this sort of behavior is typical, par-for-the-course for Gruff. It happens consistently, every week, although some weeks she is absent more than others.

EXCUSE ME, BUT AREN’T FOLKS IN MANAGEMENT SUPPOSED TO SET EXAMPLES FOR THEIR PERSONS WHO REPORT TO THEM?

Gruff generated one of her more noteworthy and innovative excuses about this time last year, in the middle of the Winter. It was a real doozie of an excuse, one that afforded Gruff the opportunity to be out of the office for an entire week. Are you ready for a good laugh? Ms. Gruff’s excuse was that her son had to be kept out of school for the week because he came down with a case of poison ivy!

POISON IVY – WHO THE FRICK CONTRACTS POISON IVY IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER???????????… give me a frickin’ break!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The situation with Gruff is unbelievable. How can such an unqualified, unethical jerk become a supervisor, with persons reporting to her?

Bo Drift - an Opportunity Lost on Dumbness

It's Sunday evening and a "NorEaster" storm is heading up the Eastern Seaboard this evening, expected to soon begin a 12 hour period of dumping snow hear and all throughout the Northeast, to the tune of between 8 and 14 inches depending on location.

Friday after work I joined several colleagues after work at a sports bar near work to say farewell and best of luck to one of our coworkers, whom I'll call Drew.  Drew is 23 years old, and innocent pup who's been out of college for about a year and spent that time in our department.  A fairly smart kid and, from what I heard, a quick study; Drew had the pleasure of reporting to Bo Drift, a world-class flop of a supervisor -  someone who should not be supervising people due to his lacking numerous innate qualities.

It's very unfortunate Drew had to experience his first taste of the "real (work) world" working for Bo.  A person's first real job should be working for someone who has the desire and ability to coach and mentor fresh and impressionable minds, a boss who can teach skills and be a model for good work ethic.  In other words, someone who is the complete 180 degree opposite of Bo Drift.

Let me share just one of probably dozens of specific examples of how Bo was a poor supervisor to Drew.  Within a few months of starting his new job, Drew asked Bo to sit down with him and provide Drew some guidance.  Drew asked what types of training and assignments Bo thought would help aim Drew toward the track of moving to the next level.  Drew essentially asked for some coaching, which I personally think is quite admirable of Drew.  Bo's reply was to inform Drew that, in Bo's eyes, Drew didn't have much chance of doing well in the department and would likely not be able to be promoted.  Good mentoring and real encouraging, huh???

Without going into other examples, I'll just say Drew's remaining experience with Bo went downhill from there.  Bo treated Drew like dog doo, like a grunt.

The after-work party I went to last Friday was for Drew.  He took a union job in the field for a lower salary - $12,000 lower -  just to get away from Bo!  In addition to the lower salary, Drew  will  loose out on receiving a yearly bonus, which all professional employees receive.  After less than a year working for Bo, Drew became so miserable that he decided to change career tracks from a professional, office employee doing what he went to college for; to a physical union worker in the field.

As I said, Drew's a sharp kid.  He proved himself capable by contributing to the department.  It's a waste of an opportunity to lose Drew, and all because Bo Drift is an incapable, horrible supervisor.

More on Alignment

So, I wonder why many managers and supervisors such as those to who I report just plain don't get what seems to me to be a common sense fact -  it's not good to stick people with assignments that are not aligned to their interests and skills.

In my case, the data head responsibilities I have were forced on me in a sneaky way.  One day about 18 months ago, Ms. Gruff came to me and asked, "How would you like to help out with  _____".  I replied "yes" because, at the time I trusted Gruff, and took what she asked me at face value.  I thought she was truthfully asking me to work on an occasional basis performing those sorts of assignments.  Instead, the following week, I found myself in a meeting with Gruff and a fellow coworker, in which they were permanently transferring ALL of such responsibilities to me!

Needless to say, my trust level in Gruff plummeted to near zero and I have been miserable ever since over having responsibilities for an area of the business in which I have no interest whatsoever, performing work which are 180 degrees out of alignment compared to my personality and skills.  And, to add insult to injury, I've made it clear to Gruff and her boss of my feelings about this situation.  I've told them on more than one occasion that I do not like this type of work, that I feel like a fish out of water when dealing with folks at other companies who have these responsibilities.

Sadly, Gruff and her boss just don't get it.  When I first voiced my feelings to Ms. Gruff's boss, he replied by attempting to explain (convince) to me why I should enjoy the data intensive work.  I practically burst out laughing and got a confused look from him.  When he asked why I found humor in his reply, I bluntly said, "Do you realize how ridiculous this is?  You've just tried to convince me that I should like this kind of work!  It's ridiculous because I should not have to be convinced to like something; if I like it, I would not need convincing".  The concealed grin I saw on Gruff's boss'  face indicated  he  understood how silly it was to try to convince me I should like the work.  That incident was about a year ago.  Have things changed?  Unfortunately for me, NO -  my primary duties remain the data intensive crap I'm neither good at or enjoy, depsote the fact there are others in the department who would better fit and gladly accept the responsibilities.

Out of Alignment - When Folks Work On The Wrong Stuff

This topic came to me on my drive home from work today.  As with all my other posts, it comes from my personal experience and, as with many other topics on which I blog, is based on experiences I am currently struggling with.

Most folks (I believe) would accept without argument that people have strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes.  This applies to the work people do.  Some people like to write, others do not; some hate to crunch numbers or do presentations, while others love such tasks.  Certain people are great marketers and others are best at accounting.  You get it; pretty easy and fundamental... right?

For me, I am not a data head.  Instead, I'm creative and expressive.  Well, guess what?  Yep, the primary responsibilities assigned to me at the present time (beginning about 18 months ago) are involve data intensive projects dealing with other data heads at other companies.  Yuck, I hate it!  Now that you know my feelings, do you think I strive to do a good job at an assignment involving work I'd care not to perform.  If you guessed "no", you're correct!

Now, I'm not dumb - I'm not saying all of us can be fortunate enough to always have assignments and responsibilities we adore!  Hey, this is life.  But, when management has an opportunity to align work to the skills and interests of the workers, don't you agree they should do so?

In my case, my management has failed to make such an alignment.  And, both I and the organization are suffering (unnecessarily) as a result.

That Time of Year (continued)

Yup, it's indeed that time of year!  I just finished drafting my review and forwarding it to Ms. Gruff so that she can copy-and-paste it into the official company performance review system.  Yeah, we'll sit and chat about it all for about an hour or so next week, she'll submit it, and we'll both sign-off on it, then forward it on to her boss and her bosses boss; all before the magic deadline imposed by HR.  And, nothing will happen relative to performance until the nonsense starts all over again a year from now.

Sorry to sound a bit apathetic, but I've been dragged through this process or a slight variation of another name for over 25 years now in MyCompany.  I trust you can understand how I may feel a bit more apathetic each year.  The whole process breeds apathy, discontent and mediocrity.  Perhaps worst of all is that the process does next to nothing to improve or affect performance, which is what the freakin' process is supposedly aimed at.

To close this post, I want to share another aspect of the process which is a joke:  Next week, I and everyone else will sit with their respective supervisors and get ratings, on a scale of 1 to 5 in several "competencies".  During these meetings, the bosses will pretend  the ratings are open for discussion.  In fact,  the  bosses all got in a room this week for 1/2 a day and collectively  decided what the ratings of all people in the department will be.  So, the ratings are cast in stone before the sessions with the supervisors are held; thereby making the sessions a moot, meaningless point!

Hope you're understanding more why I feel a tad apathetic after 25 years of this B.S. !!!

It's That Time of Year Again (oh, Joy)!

Right on schedule, this, as the first week of the new year, my boss sent me and everyone on the "team" (as she calls it in a forced, fake way) an email asking us to prepare our performance reviews "input" and "thoughts", in time for the middle of next week, when she will begin sitting with us for our reviews.  What she is really asking us to do is to essentially write our own performance reviews so that she may do some editing as she sees fit before they are finalized and submitted to HR; thereby making her job easier.  This process is a joke, in plain English!

Isn't part of a supervisor's job- a significant part at that - to monitor and review his or her employees?  the boss (not the employee) should take the first crack at drafting reviews, not vice-versa as in MyCompany.

A huge part of the problem, when it concerns my boss and the majority of others whom I have worked for over the years, is they literally have no clue what there employees do or how they do it.  For this reason. my boss would not be able to write reviews  of me or probably any of  the people on her  "team".  To do so would require her to  know enough about her peoples' skills and accomplishments.  Sadly, she's out of touch.

I suspect it's the same at many companies.  I know this is type of situation is prevalent throughout MyCompany.  The folks is charge; the supervisors, managers, and directors really have very little clue about what gets done or how it gets done.  Most of them do a good job at pretending and I suppose that's how they got to and stay where they are.

I suspect I'll be posting more on the subject of performance reviews over the next few weeks as I go through the annual drudgery of writing my review and then sitting with my boss to discuss her thoughts and be told of her rankings of me in the various competency and goal categories.