It used to be that when there was a job opening, a “personnel” manager could just post it in the paper, job seekers would look in the Help Wanted Section and the two of you would connect. The candidate would receive an invitation for an interview and if the candidate could walk, talk, and chew gum at the same time, he or she would be under serious consideration if not hired on the spot. Now HR and the organization must take a far more active role in recruiting, hiring, and retaining their workforce.

Tag! You’re it! This is the mantra of a childhood game, we have all played. Of course, the objective to the game of tag is to be tagged. This idea can be true in the workplace as well. Some people do not want to be “tagged” for the next position up via promotion. Of course, there are others who might be running toward the person who is the current “it.” That is to say, they want and work hard to achieve that next promotion. Unfortunately, many organizations run successions more like a game of tag than a serious process deserving of attention. This creates chaos, low morale, and can have a negative impact on profits. Good succession planning takes just that – a plan.

In an earlier blog, the topic was mashing myths around assessments. This blog addresses another “M” word shadowing assessments and that is “mistakes.” To be more precise, mistakes in the use of assessments, mistakes in understanding the language in assessments, mistakes in using the information in assessments to its best advantage, and not using the right assessment.

Long ago and far away the foundation for assessments began with Empedocles, 490-430 B.C. who founded the school of medicine in Sicily and Hippocrates, 460-370 B.C. from Greece who we consider as the father of medicine. However, he was also an observer of people. Despite what my children tell you, I do not know these two gentlemen personally. Even with this long history, many myths, mistaken ideas, and misuses of assessments exist and persist. The point of this blog is to dispel the myths, correct the mistaken ideas, and better redirect the misuse of assessments.

As children we would ask “Why?” a lot. Hearing the answer, “Because I’m the mommy.” Or “Because I said so.”, was the reason we had to accept. As adults when we ask that question, we expect an answer with a little more “detail” behind it. This is never truer than when an organization introduces change. In fact, you may think that your organization somehow turned into a day care center full of whining nursery school children when you announce a change. There is a preventative measure that reduces the whining scenario.

According to a recent Harris Poll, over 50% of people ages 18 to 34 believe they learn more from technology than people. While this may be a blinding flash of the obvious, what does this mean for business? Unless you’ve been under a rock, you know that millennials now form the largest segment of the workforce. The real question now becomes, if the largest part of your workforce prefers technology over people, how can we build driving coalitions for change?

Change is rarely easy or welcomed in an organizational setting. However, there are ways to make change easier, go more smoothly, and be more effective. The reality is that there will always be hurdles in your tracks, challenges to overcome, and people who try to stop the change train no matter what the change may be. Change failure is high and placing the blame for this failure is, more times than not, given to one element. It doesn’t matter what change model you implement; the beginning of change is the best place to harness the steam of the change engine with one key source of power. 

One of the biggest laments for CEOs is that their people don’t think for themselves. Think about it. If you have several or even one team member who incessantly comes to you with questions instead of solutions your day is full of constant interruptions and productivity falls to zero – for both you and your team member. For the CEOs, the ideal is to have people think for themselves thus freeing up time for them to work on larger business issues. Why can’t or won’t people think for themselves?