Traits for Success at Pretty Much Anything

Author: Dave Crisp

22 May

Of the “Big Five” personality traits, the two David Brooks (my last post) culled from research that are more common among big company CEOs should be no surprise. For workers in general the most important has always been known - Conscientiousness. That is about following through, doing what you said you would, delivering the result. There’s an overtone of dogged persistence, true, but lots of people stick to their word without seeming to have fixate on detail or being ‘grinders.’

The second trait he pulled out is Emotional Stability. Is it any wonder a big company CEO might need the skills or temperament to tolerate rocky surroundings and keep on trucking? You can’t get to the top without being severely buffeted by conflicting demands, crazy work expectations and dramatically challenging personalities around you. To forge ahead Conscientiously in that environment takes Emotional Stability, for sure. We hope in personal life to have it a bit smoother, but for many it isn’t too different.

The fact these traits are possessed by pretty much every big company exec - and needed in most of what we ourselves do - stick-to-it-iveness and the emotional balance to persist long enough to get results - should be no surprise. So they’re ‘common’ to everyone. But that’s not to say these are their only traits nor that having them makes them ‘dull’ as Brooks argues. The top notch people I mentioned are or were highly unique personalities that we’d describe as anything, but dull.

The problem is exactly that these two are not ‘enough’ to get the very best results. Beyond sticking to it and staying the course, we need to be creative, able to work well in teams and energetic enough to care to, whatever the origin of that energy - belief, faith, commitment to a great goal, faith in people, whatever. These other three can all come from very different sources, hence the uniqueness of personality and style we see. When we look deeper we see that the first two traits can come from very different sources, too, not just gritting our teeth discipline.

Viva variety. Yet we see the five core needs for success are pretty much the same five in every endeavor, for every person. HOW they achieve them can be unique, but not whether they work. These are the five skill areas I work to help people discover and develop - ones that turn up in every book on success and which anyone can build for themselves if they simply keep focused and keep adding to steadily, conscientiously. throughout our entire lives: it isn’t over till it’s over. unless you flat out give up.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 5 Skills - Instant Leadership, All That We Know, Coaching Yourself, Happiness, How Simplicity Works

Case in Point: How We Understand Leadership

Author: Dave Crisp

19 May

A friend forwarded a really interesting New York Times Op Ed link (In Praise of Dullness) with the comment the author may or may not be making similar points to my last post. In fact, it could be taken either way because the author talks about several opposing things as if they were somehow one.

Author, David Brooks, cites interesting research showing that CEOs of today’s successful companies lack people skills, extraversion, openness and social agreeableness in study after study. that what distinguishes most is emotional stability and conscientiousness (these are ‘the Big Five’ that psychologists generally agree define personalities). He suggests charisma isn’t valuable, as Jim Collins showed in Good to Great, but in doing so he mixes apples and oranges.

First, it confirms my assertion that many of today’s large organization CEOs lack the skills they will need to lead with utmost effectiveness especially in the coming years of a new type of worker. That’s what Collins is getting at, too. He found only a handful of big company CEOs had taken their companies from Good to Great and kept them there. However, Collins’ findings reinforce that you need openness and sociability (though perhaps not extraversion) to reach the most successful CEO level - to lead effective teams. Quiet team-builders emerged as his preferred model and I agree.

What the other research confirms is what Collins also found - that most sizable company CEOs today are OK, but not superstars. It’s not their lack of charisma (Collins’ winners didn’t have it either), but more importantly lack of ability to build teams. Most are detail-oriented drivers who keep everyone’s nose to the grindstone where more open, creative solutions would be better. The grindstone approach keeps things going and creates incremental improvement, but doesn’t help things take off. Brooks notes that, but equates Collins’ top leaders with the grinders, which isn’t accurate.

All in all, as we struggle to get clarity about how top leaders should actually look, we find few companies yet understand it well enough to make the best choices. And that may be due to the fact that we have years of grinders lingering at the top choosing people like themselves. These are ’safe’ candidates, without a lot of personality actually, unlike the major characters that bring together all the right skills like Kelleher of Southwest Airlines, Walton of Wal-mart, Welch of GE and other highly individual, but interesting styles.

Just because the bulk of OK companies today are run by ‘grinders’ (if I can call them that somewhat unfairly because most bring something more than that, just not enough more), that doesn’t mean this is what companies SHOULD look for. There is a better model. Collins got it right. We need to figure out how to develop it and then we need to start hiring for those qualities.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, Coaching Issues, Human Resources (HR), Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

Hope Springs Eternal for HR & Leadership

Author: Dave Crisp

18 May

Yet another article, this time on the Training Zone UK site, points out that poor leadership abounds - case in point being the troubled banks - despite the great amount of leadership training offered today, which is especially widespread in those very organizations. Great point. We teach it, but it isn’t learned. Or perhaps those who actually emerge at the top of organizations are frequently the ones who pay no attention.

Here we have the core puzzle of leadership development. The best training programs are established by many of these poor leaders who get to the top. The programs focus on skills that make for better leadership. In my own experience, top leaders were invited to speak at company training programs and gave impressive speeches touching on all the key principles, which they then ignored applying in their own behavior, with disastrous results.

Nevertheless, the article goes on to say, we will see dramatic improvement in future thanks to today’s insightful training. Really? If so, it clearly won’t be the training, but the attendees who make the difference. We’ve been teaching servant leadership, situational leadership and dozens of other effective models for 50 years. Still only a handful of truly effective leaders exist in top roles today.

We point the finger of fault in many directions - business schools, lack of measurement, poor HR - but we don’t face the likely fact that it is all of us and none of us who are to blame. Slowly, but surely we advance and tolerate poor leaders because they have the old-fashioned look of charisma, control and confidence that others lack and we can’t see anyone else being ready. We ignore evidence, training, common sense and examples of the best leadership styles to promote.

Only if a new generation of leaders and staff refuse to work with or for poor managers will we see this start to change. Will that be Gen X or Y or Millennials? Time will tell. In the mean time, the hard drivers, who think they have all the answers will likely continue to surge toward the top while the ‘continuous learner’ types who would make far better choices continue to question their readiness, along with everyone who makes the selections.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 1 Balance - Judgment, Coaching Issues, Fix The Jerks, Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

History has lessons to show us about HR

Author: Dave Crisp

10 Apr

Richard McLaughlin writing on the new Plexus community “Organizational Consultants Network quotes the venerable Marv Weisbord, expert on Organization Behavior, author of Productive Workplaces Revisited and that led me via search to the original Productive Workplaces on Amazon.

Reading their link to the “First Pages” of the older book is really worthwhile to make instantly clear the history of effective HR and OD and how early lessons apply directly today, ultimately explaining how smart financial leaders led us into the current mess.

Conclusion? McLaughlin quotes Weisbord. .from 1987! “The world is changing too fast for experts, and old-fashioned “problem-solving” no longer works. For the past forty years productive workplaces on several continents have been evolving another way entirely of thinking and acting. First, they have been moving away from problem-solving toward whole-systems improvement as the secret for solving great handfuls of problems at once. Second, they have been moving away from getting experts to fix systems toward having experts join everybody else in learning how to make improvements.”

Doesn’t that sound like social networking and The Wisdom of Crowds over command-and-control leadership? You bet! So why haven’t we arrived yet at the point where everyone understands this? I suppose double-entry bookkeeping wasn’t thoroughly accepted by 100% of business for its first hundred years either, though now you wouldn’t start into serious business management without such basic accounting.

McLaughlin goes on to link another excellent article by NYT’s Nicholas Kristof, illustrating how well-functioning groups should be able to out-do experts and ties it directly to today’s disasters. When will we finally learn these lessons and concentrate on leading in new ways?

PS: I love one of Kristof’s references to Berkeley’s Philip Tetlock (author of the 2005 book, Expert Political Judgment - which could have been subtitled ‘yeah, right’). Tetlock, he notes, uses the description “hedgehog” in a negative way. For me that illustrates balancing Jim Collins’ use of it in Good to Great to describe the positive need for focus, which in turn illustrates again the need for balance rather than too much of any one element of effective leadership. And in many cases balance only is achievable by including more people in the process of leadership.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 1 Balance - Judgment, 3 Strategic - Thinking, 5 Habits - Action, Human Resources (HR), Leaders of the Future

Let’s Smack Ourselves Again

Author: Dave Crisp

9 Apr

Sigh. I posted the link to Dr. Beatty’s recent condemnation of HR (my earlier post) on HRM Today without much comment to see what would come in. Nevin Adams essentially summarizes Kris Dunn’s post on the Workforce Management Human Capitalist blog. Both feel if HR simply does a good job, those who really matter see and appreciate their contributions. I wish I could believe that, but I’ve seen a ton of HR people doing great jobs these last few years and still find even people close to them don’t see it, as evidenced by Kenneth J. Nessing’s reply on HRM Today.

Kenneth is an HR systems guy who says he totally agrees with Beatty that “HR fails to understand the real link between productivity and people.” Here’s someone who, like Beatty, presumably works with HR people in large organizations blandly continuing the stereotype and broad-brushing ‘all’ HR.

My point? If HR doesn’t start to stand up and correct these mistaken, but all-day-every-day, comments we will truly be the failures so many already take for granted. It’s because of such standard assumptions that HR has such an uphill battle for budget, resources, great people and ‘a seat at the table.’ It’s fine that some individuals have spectacularly overcome these, but we’re doing a disservice to other professionals in our field if we don’t speak up whenever and wherever this myth is propagated.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

4 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, Fix The Jerks, Human Resources (HR), Leaders of the Future

Webinar: the Continuing Leadership Crisis

Author: Dave Crisp

7 Apr

Colleagues at the Human Capital Institute asked if I would present a webinar with them on whether the ‘leadership crisis is over’ or not. Yes, I would; no it’s not! Not by a long shot. here’s the write up:

Next Human Capital Institute Webcast on Talent Acquisition -
Title:   Is the Leadership Hiring Problem Over?
When:    Tuesday, Apr 21 2009 / 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM ET
Presented By:    Dave Crisp , CEO , Crisp Strategies
Fee: Free - on a first come, first serve basis
While the economy may have extended the projected leadership gap for a short time as many Boomers un-retire, employers will still face labor shortages in many areas of their companies, most notably among their executive team. Why? Generation X, those employees with the next amount of experience on the job, are a smaller population and just don’t have enough people to fill the seats being vacated by Boomers.
So how should an organization prepare itself for this gap? The strategies include operating leaner organizations with less management, dramatically improving Boomer hiring techniques and vigorous leadership development practices to "grow" younger workers. Discovering which approach- or developing a new one- will be the focus of this webcast.

So, for anyone interested in HR and Talent Management, registration is here.

The genesis of this, of course, is the many knee-jerk reactions some observers inevitably have to any crisis. For some current job losses seem to mean it’s a buyers market, the hiring crunch is over. With so many out of work, they reason, companies can hire whomever they need, maybe even at bargain basement prices. The fact is it’s harder than ever to get leaders who can help bail us out of this mess.

We need more leaders, not only due to retirements (and, yes, some of those are being postponed, but only temporarily), but also because flatter, widely dispersed organizations and the need for more innovation require more people with leadership skills than ever before. People are available, but the right skills aren’t.

This is one of many assumptions people leap to in times of distress. We’ve commented on some others - like believing that now we need financial wizards to save us. They got us into the mess, don’t forget, so why would we think they’ll fix it?

Another mistake is thinking ‘in tough times we need tough leaders.’ This one isn’t entirely wrong, just dangerously misinterpreted by many. The problem is in the word tough. We’re right enough to say ‘when the going gets tough, the tough get going,’ but tough has many meanings. Look at Hitler versus Churchill. Both tough. Hitler was admired by many before the War. in the US, in England, sadly in Germany. very widely because he took tough steps to bail his country out of the Depression. Observers failed to pay much attention to his methods, however. When the inevitable resulted, we needed a different type of toughness to overcome this earlier mistake.

Good people can be tough, too, but in today’s crisis there is a tendency once again to look at the wrong kind of ‘tough guys’ who undertake dramatic layoffs and cut programs, who ‘make the tough decisions.’ Well, let’s not forget that sometimes the tough decisions are to support your people when it costs something to do it. What makes leadership a challenge is that you have to constantly weigh difficult choices and try to make the best ones, not necessarily popular with your audience and not necessarily just penalizing the less powerful players.

What appears ‘tough’ to one, may in fact be the easy choice, what everyone else is doing. Leadership is taking all the factors into account, including how short term this recession might be in retrospect, and choosing the higher path, not just the expedient one. A number of CEOs have made the effort to save cost without layoffs, choosing instead to offer leaves, unpaid vacation extensions, time-sharing of reduced hours, re-assignment to training or neglected maintenance tasks and so forth, to name only a few options.

We have to hope that facing a crisis is always taken as a chance for everyone to learn greater leadership skills by pitching in to save each other. People rise to the occasion and come up with creative solutions if they are supported and encouraged. Those who unnecessarily lay off instead will be the losers in the long run as they discover the leadership hiring crisis is far from over!

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: Current Affairs, Leaders of the Future, Learning Organization

Alternatives to Hating HR (1)

Author: Dave Crisp

6 Apr

A ping-back on my recent post introduced me to John Sumser’s very interesting blog, specifically linking more comments about Dick Beatty’s diatribe against “HR.” I believe in the value of debate so I’m happy to link both good and bad opinions out there. Jon is certainly more constructive and he’s rounded up a number who are as well. However, it’s still not enough for me.

There are currently two opinions commonly published about HR. First, that most people in it are useless, especially at understanding, justifying their cost/value or contributing to results in their organizations. Second, the growing alternative view, like much of what Jon collected, that while most HR people are useless, it’s neither entirely their fault nor true of all since some actually reach the level of valuable, measured proof of strategic contribution.

I argue there’s a third view that we should hear a lot more about. that HR is making a valuable contribution almost everywhere, but only to the extent they’re allowed, assisted and supported by the rest of the team. (Try running your organization without any.) Consider that HR is largely doing what it is told and empowered to do by more senior organization leaders who control what HR is paid (typically less than most functions), who’s appointed (qualified. or not), what it’s entitled to do (mostly essential administrative stuff with a smattering of more strategic items ‘if there’s time’) and who listens when HR has something to contribute.

Instead of solving these problems, most people seem content to stand back and blame HR for not ‘proving its value’ as if there isn’t already a mountain of scientific evidence showing that the impact of doing HR well is enormous (Pfeffer’s work offers great examples). We should be talking about how to focus what we know can be done to fit our specific organizations not blaming the guys in the middle who are striving to do what they can with the resources they’re given. Pile on is not constructive.

I’ll expand later, but for now let’s make one thing clear. Try appointing a junior accountant as CFO and then encouraging your managers to ignore what she or he ’suggests’ if they feel they have a better idea. Of course things would come crashing down in less than a fiscal year. CFO dictates aren’t ’suggestions’ and are invariably backed up by CEOs and armies of accounting staff policing the rules daily. But with HR issues, people are so adaptable they put up with and take orders from blatantly bad leaders as well as good, the former being tolerated for years, often encouraged and even promoted because they ‘get the numbers.’

Most people continue to produce as faithfully as they can at least for a while till something better comes along and they cover poor performance of those around and above them up to a point. Financial lapses aren’t so self-repairing. Let me say for the record, if HR had similar rule-enforcing support bad managers wouldn’t be tolerated, let alone promoted. That would certainly make measurement of HR practices a lot easier, too, by enabling a much more consistent application of HR strategies than the hit or miss hodgepodge we normally see.

Now HR could never and should never strive to operate via pure enforcement. Human situations are simply too varied. By its nature HR has to work through other leaders in the organization and ideally help develop them to be the best possible. Nevertheless, clear HR values guidelines would help insist that leaders act with good will, positive reinforcement and other basic effective leadership practices. Needless to say perhaps, HR can’t be the body enforcing those values. As Archimedes said, “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I’ll move the world.” Let’s help HR with the tools and measures instead of suggesting they ought to make them all up by themselves. Help make HR part of the team or spend the rest of your declining performance time questioning why they can’t perform.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 2 Positive - Feelings, 3 Strategic - Thinking, Business/Strategy, Fix The Jerks, Human Resources (HR), Leaders of the Future

What’s Wrong In Human Resources?

Author: Dave Crisp

5 Apr

By now I’ve had a solid opportunity to mull over what struck me as so outrageous about Rutgers’s Dick Beatty’s comments noted in my earlier post and the “typical” HR responses to it of ‘he must have some sort of point’ (if I can say that without falling into the same trap of over-generalizing). This is a good illustration of what makes HR the toughest job in every organization and why we need and deserve better support from those close to the field like Dr. Beatty.

What I mean is HR sits in the middle of controversy by its very nature. I was fascinated yesterday to read two seemingly opposing views of using the Internet ‘for fun’ while at work. Richard Proctor of APL Borealis (who sell blocking software) argues it’s a six-hour a week productivity time-waster (seemingly confirmed by articles such as this from a Gallup study) that should be blocked while a study from University of Melbourne finds those using it at work average 9% greater productivity. The truth almost certainly blends the two points of view as you can hear in the Melbourne professor’s comments:

Notice that many of the figures are likely in the ballpark: 14% are addicted and would benefit by having at least some, maybe all, sites blocked, but on average there’s greater productivity overall from allowing people to use the Internet casually at work. Coker cites millions of dollars ‘wasted’ on blocking and appeals for understanding the ‘psychological’ factors that lead to productivity.

If you’re HR, working for a CEO or CFO with a clear point of view on this, you’re likely not going to waste much energy debating beyond tabling both sides of the argument. Many knee-jerk reactions will go one way or the other absolutely and we know which level of the organization chart dictates which way wins.

And yet this, of course, is an HR problem, right? This is about people and productivity. Once decided, no one’s going to argue with the CEO, but they’ll blame “HR” for not standing up for what’s ‘right’ (their opposing view, whichever that is). Both will have ‘numbers’ on their side and accuse HR of being oblivious to facts and incapable with measurement. We’re a convenient whipping boy for frustrated human beings.

HR on the other hand will do its best to mediate, to argue for compromise. and turn the issue back where it belongs - onto managers who are on the spot, who can lead productivity by getting people effectively engaged in getting results and dealing with slackers whatever it takes (and sometimes, yes, it does take offering distractions to clear the mind where in others it requires a strong management hand). Managers alone are in the best position to observe who’s addicted and slipping into a productivity-wasting pattern versus those who are really producing and need the distractions. No HR solution ‘fixes’ this challenge once and for all. It requires day-to-day leadership from every manager at every level.

Is it any wonder HR is criticized by managers who’d rather have an easy solution of blocking rather than have to manage addicted employees and employees who resent big brother cutting them off from Facebook and Twitter? That’s a lot of people who probably realize at some level HR is in an no-win position, but still rationalize their need to blame someone.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 1 Balance - Judgment, Business/Strategy, Communicating Effectively, Fix The Jerks, Human Resources (HR), Time Management

A Revival of “Why We Hate HR”

Author: Dave Crisp

30 Mar

This objectionable view of HR was pointed out by a widely-read consultant/speaker colleague, Jan van der Hoop a day or so ago. Frankly I would have expected a different approach from Rutgers University’s Richard Beatty. Talk about pandering to your audience’s prejudices instead of trying to educate or solve the problem.. Even allowing for editorial liberties with the message, inadvertent or otherwise, this speech is unacceptable.

I’ll ignore the obvious confusion of the terms ‘employee satisfaction,’ which we pretty much all know by now doesn’t relate directly to performance and ‘engagement,’ which does. I’ll even ignore the fact that he contradicts himself in several statements, some on this very issue.

However, if this was actually said as quoted, Beatty is making a ridiculous generalization: "HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," he said. "Low turnover isn’t necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest." Well, Dr. Beatty, there isn’t any “HR” in this sense. There are a whole lot of individuals with varying ranges of skills and opinions. And in case you haven’t looked, there are tons of HR practitioners out there who do not fit this stereotype.

I’m first to agree that HR departments need to invest more and bring in more people to work as HR staff who can develop better analytics and metrics. I certainly support rotating a percentage of other executives through the HR function both to learn and bring in new ideas and approaches - not a bad idea for most functions. To suggest that HR isn’t making an effort at the transition to a modern understanding of what’s required of it is just patently missing what’s happening in the field. Maybe it isn’t happening fast enough, but not for lack of discussion or attention from HR. Insults aren’t likely to help as any good coach knows and practices. Apparently your program doesn’t follow the path of ‘find what’s right and encourage more of it.’ I realize that doesn’t make for as good press coverage, but really..

Maybe this is a speech you hope will be a further wake-up call to HR. or maybe, as another of my colleagues suggested, it’s an “Ann Coulter-type attempt” to garner attention by being insultingly outrageous. Whichever, one has to ask, isn’t it remarkable that someone who’s been training HR leaders for years finds they are so entirely hopeless? Whose fault would that be really - your students. or their professor?

Anyway, I’m pleased you answered my email suggesting we could debate with a response of basically ‘bring it on.’ But I also note you haven’t responded to my request for more details, including what you actually said. If I’ve misconstrued, please feel free to enlighten me. While waiting I’ve read several more polite responses suggesting you must have a point somewhere, that where there’s smoke there’s fire. I’m not so accepting. If professionals in the field, in particular, continue to bad-mouth it in such a blanket, unthinking way, how can we ever expect to raise HR to the status it deserves? I’m not sure an unbalanced attack deserves any less in return.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

2 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, Business/Strategy, Fix The Jerks, Human Resources (HR)

“Staff” and “Headcount” or “Talent?”

Author: Dave Crisp

20 Mar

The essence of the blog mentioned in my last post is the question of whether, in these cut-back oriented times, we’re going to forget about nurturing and growing ‘talent’ in organizations and go back to the days when all the counted was the number of ’staff’ or ‘headcount’ - the cost. The Lucy Kellerman article she refers to is the case in point.

Wow, what a series of mistaken assumptions. First, even companies that have cut back in major ways are simultaneously talking about talent shortages. With the need to keep pace through constant innovation so high and growing, they are feeling the need to reduce ’staff’ (meaning, as they see it, widgets who fill assembly-line-like roles) and at the same time seek out and hire more creative, leadership-oriented self-starters who can move things forward. They face the prospect of having to do with fewer ‘headcount’ for two reasons - both tighter economics and shortage of such ‘talent.’ In that case, the ‘talent’ they do entice to join or stay had better be truly valuable and outstanding.

Kellerman’s assumption that there will be less spent on trying to find, recruit and motivate those we formerly thought of as ’staff’ in favor of greater emphasis on rewarding senior executives is ridiculous to put it bluntly. What got us here? And what are we angry about? High senior executive comp programs paying out for poor judgment, lack of insight and lack of listening to up and coming ‘talent’ in their organizations. To put power into the hands of a few executives totally focused on financial performance would reproduce exactly what went wrong - a focus on short term economics to the exclusion of building companies with excellent people throughout who all contribute and give the organization hope of surviving the inevitable departures of a few senior people.

Is it or …or both?

EVA or Economic Value Added schemes have tended to justify growing senior executive bonuses out of proportion to overall viability of their organizations - the very things that got us here. They’re not evil by themselves, but in the hands of senior executives who design their payouts for their own benefit, they are fatal. And Emotional Quotient (EQ), better thought of as ‘people skills’ are what has been lacking.

The current economic crisis may make us think about dollar signs everywhere for the moment, but it shouldn’t blind us to the fact that ignoring people and what they think - customers, the public and, yes, staff, too - has been the hallmark of those companies who fail far more than their ignorance of numerical calculations. If they’ve failed the grade on the numbers it’s not because they were spending all their time on people issues. It’s because they forgot that numbers have to make sense to and benefit human beings not just executives. So forget building your hopes around pure ‘bean-counters’ holed up in ivory towers gilded with senior executive privilege. This is exactly the time when we need leaders with a wide, balanced understanding of ALL the issues they face.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 1 Balance - Judgment, 3 Strategic - Thinking, Business/Strategy, Fix The Jerks, Leaders of the Future

Traits for Success at Pretty Much Anything

Case in Point: How We Understand Leadership

Hope Springs Eternal for HR & Leadership

History has lessons to show us about HR

Let’s Smack Ourselves Again

Webinar: the Continuing Leadership Crisis

Alternatives to Hating HR (1)

What’s Wrong In Human Resources?

A Revival of “Why We Hate HR”

“Staff” and “Headcount” or “Talent?”

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

Site Pages/Articles

Blogroll

Archives