DISQUS

You make a great point Frank. These communications do require a bit of finesse though. The message cannot be received as 'the company has its head in the sand', or 'our leaders are being insensitive to those who lost their jobs'. Seriously engaging remaining employees in the work to be done and the opportunities to be siezed, and addressing 'survivor' fear, malaise and anxiety are critical. How it's done is also important.

I've always make a point of taking time to celebrate with my staff. Not to the point where the celebrations are meaningless, but to genuinely treat people. Monthly birthdays, an employee who graduates or gets certification, weddings and babies (for both male and female employees). If the company didn't cover it then I did. It's a chance to relax, mingle, laugh - we all need these things. And when you do it together you solidify the togetherness that is necessary to accomplish goals and do that happily.

Another problem this illlustrates is the lack of clarity between what performance outcomes connect to pay vs bonus. In this case, I think the action he took to protect shareholder value is a performance requirement compensated by pay. It should not merit consideration relative to bonus. Employees, even executives, seem to think that a bonus is for doing our regular job really well. Normally that is what pay increase differentiation is designed to recognize. Incentives, particularly for executives, should be about company performance - period. Barely rescuing the company from total disaster would not seem to qualify as stellar company performance.

Paul, for me personally my comments would not be any different regardless of the race, ethnicity or nationality of the person highlighted as the example. It's all about the position for which the person is being considered. An extremely competent, high performing junior Marketing Analyst who is loved by all may not be right for the VP spot no matter how much they have accomplished as an Analyst.

I think we need to differentiate between the impacts of regional accents (we all probably have a bias toward our own) and the ability to be articulate. Some people would think those from Arkansas have an unattractive accent, but Bill Clinton is certainly an articulate speaker and executive material. And one of the greatest orators and leaders of all time, Abraham Lincoln, had an accent that drove the eastern establishment and southern gentry crazy, but his words moved mountains and his style showed his love of proper language.

Substance is what matters. It's the words and languarge usage not the accent. Too many people today, regardless of regional accent or education, are inarticulate. Their speech is overly colloquial and pedestrian and their grammar is atrocious. I wish we focused more on this.

The other factor I think we're talking about is image. Sara Palin's behaviors - like the winking - combined with her poor command of language fail to convey an executive image (obviously opinion). This has nothing to do with accents, or diversity. Image can be faked, so basing selection on image when you see it is risky. But the lack of appropriate image is a fair selection criteria for most executive positions because it impacts credibility, stature, and the ability to influence and persuade.

By the way the Brits have their own version of regional accent bias. I think Frank must be referencing what they call 'BBC English'.

I am also one those people who love what I do. I decided in high school that HR was the ideal field for me - it offered the perfect blend of my two passions - making money and understanding and influencing people and their behaviors. It's been 30 years and I've never been sorry. What has surprised and disappointed me is that throughout my career people outside HR have frequently commented that they "don't know why someone with my competencies - e.g., strategic business acumen, vision, analytic skill - would choose HR". Not bragging, just trying to make a point.

The perception is that good business people are wasted in HR. This is partially based on their experience that HR people are rarely good business people. I've tried to show them that their perception isn't true, even though their experience is too often true. HR is a great career for really smart capable people. It can bring tremendous needed value to an organization, and provide opportunities for personal recognition, reward, contribution and growth.

I agree that most performance management programs could use significant improvement. And certainly one weakness is the approach to superstars; another, strangely is the low average group who supervisors can never get rid of but are holding a spot the company might be able to fill with a superstar, or even a high average performer. However, you should consider the possibility that your superstar's boss disagrees with your assessment. Certainly they have more first hand knowledge of this person's performance in the workplace than you do. And extremely hard work, dedication, and commitment, while desirable, do not guarantee great outcomes, which is what we should be measuring people on. It's results not effort that count.