I’ve previously suggestedthat your employees are your company’s weakest link, and therefore, your greatest threat to suffering a cyber-attack and resulting data breach. While employee negligence (that is, employees not knowing or understanding how their actions risk your company’s data security) remains the biggest cyber risk, another is growing and also demands your attention — the malicious insider.
Dark Reading reports on a recent survey titled, “Monetizing the Insider: The Growing Symbiosis of Insiders and the Dark Web.”
Recruitment of insiders is increasing, and the use of the dark web is the current methodology that malicious actors are using to find insiders,” explains researcher Tim Condello, technical account manager and security researcher at RedOwl.
Cybercriminals recruit with the goal of finding insiders to steal data, make illegal trades, or otherwise generate profit. Advanced threat actors look for insiders to place malware within a business’ perimeter security. …
Think your business is safe? Think again. All insiders pose a risk, regardless of their seniority or technical ability, experts say. As major data breaches continue to make headlines, people are recognizing the tremendous impact leaked data can have on a business—and how they can profit from it.
There are three types of people who fall into the “insider” category, says Condello: negligent employees who don’t practice good cyber hygiene, disgruntled employees with ill will, and malicious employees who join organizations with the intent to defraud them.
No amount of training, however, will stop a disgruntled employee with ill intent, or a malicious employee who joins to do harm.
These latter two categories need more specialized attention—an insider threat program. The Wall Street Journal explains:
Companies are increasingly building out cyber programs to protect themselves from their own employees. … Businesses … are taking advantage of systems … to find internal users who are accidentally exposing their company to hackers or malicious insiders attacking the company.
These “systems,” however, can prove costly, especially for the small-business owner. While investment in a technological solution is one way to tackle this serious problem, it’s not the only way. Indeed, there is lots any company, of any size, with any amount of resources, can do to develop an insider threat program.
Aside from the expense of costly monitoring programs, what types of issues should employers include in an insider threat program? Here are four suggestions:
Extra monitoring of high-risk employees, such as those who previously violated IT policies, those who seek access to non-job-related business information, and those who are, or are likely to be, disgruntled (i.e., employees who express job dissatisfaction, who are on a performance improvement plan, or who are pending termination).
Inventories and audits for computers, mobile devices, and removable media (i.e., USB and external hard drives), both during employment and post-employment.
Pre-employment background checks to help screen out potential problem employees before they become problems.
No company can make itself bulletproof from a cyber attack. Indeed, for all businesses, data breaches are a when issue, not an if issue. However, ignoring the serious threat insiders pose to your company’s cybersecurity will only serve to accelerate the when.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
In advance of that date, which is poised to be one of the biggest tech IPOs in a while, Snap released some, shall we say, light information about its diversity strategy. It seems like they have great intentions, particularly around diversity of thought. But intentions are like wishes. Sometimes they come true, most times they don’t. Why? Because without a plan, wishes or intentions are just talk.
You need action, measured steps in a determined direction. And Snap is saying all the right things, but there’s no data, no transparency, and because there’s no transparency, there’s little to no formal accountability.
According to a TechCrunch article published recently, the company says:
“We fundamentally believe that having a team of diverse backgrounds and voices working together is our best shot at being able to create innovative products that improve the way people live and communicate. There are two things we focus on to achieve this goal. The first—creating a diverse workplace—helps us assemble this team…”
OK, now would be the perfect time to detail planned recruiting strategies to increase women and minorities at various levels throughout the organization; and a few numbers to provide context and illustrate projected success rates, or even how steep a climb the company has to hike, wouldn’t go amiss.
“We convene at the conferences, host the hackathons, and invest in the institutions that bring us amazing diverse talent every year…”
Oh, yeah? Which ones? Are you sponsoring any of those conferences? Who attends? Where are they marketed and to who? What about job fairs? Or, how about internships in high schools in underrepresented communities? Silence.
Specifics lend credibility. Without details, it’s just talk, no?
“The second—creating an inclusive workplace—is much harder to get right, but we believe it is required to unleash the potential of having a diverse team. That’s because we believe diversity is about more than numbers…”
That bit about the diverse team, well said. And diversity is absolutely about more than just numbers. But when you’re a public company, data, numbers, they matter. Showing even a little progress in strategic diversity management can inspire product confidence and brand loyalty, and get you out of jail free when your overall lack of diversity starts tongues to wagging and fingers to pointing.
“To us, it is really about creating a culture where everyone comes to work knowing that they have a seat at the table and will always be supported both personally and professionally…”
Again, well said. No argument here. But without details, strategies, something to indicate this is more than just a well written media sop to throw the more critical of us off the scent, the whole speech is just thin.
“We started by challenging our management team to set this tone every day with each of their teams, and by investing in inclusion-focused programs ranging from community outreach to internal professional development…”
What are these inclusion-focused programs? What is Snap’s idea of community outreach? What form will this internal professional development take? Challenge is almost always good, especially at the highest organizational levels. But how will you know when or if your leaders have met the challenge? And exactly is the challenge? I only ask because if I’m not sure, you might want to check to make sure your leaders are. Granted, I’m just Joe Q public, but it’s the public who will buy this stock next month, right?
“We still have a long and difficult road ahead in all of these efforts, but believe they represent one of our biggest opportunities to create a business that is not only successful but also one that we are proud to be a part of.”
Yeah, OK. It’s smart to acknowledge diversity isn’t always easy, and again, you certainly can’t argue with the desire or intent behind statements like these. At least, not until you scratch beneath the surface, look for the meat and find there’s nothing there to grab on too. Call me cynical, but I don’t believe it. There are too many unanswered questions, too little information, too many vague statements about their stance on diversity and inclusion. I can’t get a clear picture of what exactly needs to be done, who will do it, how they’ll do it, and on what timetable.
Stakeholders demand a solid accounting. Apple found that out. This month the company’s shareholders will vote to try and increase management diversity, “a proposal being pushed by its major investors.” A Diversity Inc. article reported that Apple’s current management said such efforts are “not necessary.” We’ll see. But, as much as it pains me to say it, they could be right. Apple might be able to get away with ignoring efforts to diversify its leadership ranks – at least for a while – because of the depth of market penetration – not to mention the almost rabid brand loyalty – its products have achieved globally.
Snap, however, is not Apple. It’s main product, Snapchat, is popular, but it does not have Apple’s Pied Piper-esque pull. As evidence, the August 2016 introduction of competitor Instagram Stories caused a serious slowdown on Snapchat’s growth. If the tide turned against Snapchat, all it would take is Kylie Jenner hopping on another platform, and they’d be toast.
Brands and products and the companies that love them need the public’s approval. How fast did Nordstrom drop Ivanka Trump’s brand this week following protests from anti-Trump movement #GrabYourWallet? The retailer says Trump got the boot because of poor performance, but I think we all know why her brand isn’t performing well. It’s not the clothes. I’ve seen many of them, and her stuff is cute. Until you see that name, and drop it’s hot. At least, that’s what I do.
Diversity as a facet of brand reputation, recruiting, talent management or promoting business performance is not something you want to mess with. These days – thank everything – many times the public won’t let you.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.
Periodically I plug the word “diversity” into Twitter search to see what comes up. I’ve found some great information that way. I’ve also found some things that gave me forehead wrinkles.
diversity is amazing and representation is important but only when it’s SPONTANEOUS
I clicked on the bio info for this tweeter; the picture is distorted, but it looks like a white man. Here’s why that’s relevant. That white man has the luxury to wait on nebulous things like spontaneity. Women and minorities don’t. We literally don’t have enough life left to wait on spontaneity when the topic is gender parity.
I wracked my brain, and I couldn’t think of one single thing about workplace diversity and inclusion that was spontaneous — and positive. Complaints are spontaneous. So are demands, attacks, knee-jerk policy changes and politically or culturally motivated arguments around the water cooler. Are those things positive? Not so much.
But the reason spontaneity and workplace diversity are so mismatched is because spontaneity is fast, it’s relatively furious, and in its context change is easy, it’s expected, it’s desired. Workplace diversity, on the other hand, is the antithesis of change and speed. It’s a battle, a slow, often painful struggle that finds every living and dying excuse to maintain and sustain its present state: lack of money and/or resources, no time, no strategy, no bandwidth, no real desire … .
The global gag rule is about exerting control over half of the population for reasons that have nothing to do with their well-being and everything to do ensuring there is no shift in power.
So, no. Spontaneity is actually ridiculous when the related topic is workplace diversity. Today, given the societal, financial, psychological and cultural constraints in which we operate, diversity requires intention. It requires discipline and repeat, consistent, sustainable effort. Let’s reserve the spontaneity to celebrate those “aha” moments that crop up as a result of strategic diverse management.
And speaking of knee-jerk policy changes, can I kvetch about the global gag rule for a minute? At its heart the central topic is abortion, not workplace diversity, but it’s relevant, trust me.
The Global Gag Rule, which that person signed back into policy on Jan. 20 — I’ve made a vow to avoid speaking his name, but you know who he is; he’s living in former President Obama’s old house — prevents U.S. funded health care providers around the world from even talking about abortion as a segment of family planning. According to one article I read, “Trump’s reimagining of the gag rule is even more severe than the original prohibition devised by President Ronald Reagan, which was limited to clinics that provide family planning services. The Trump gag extends to any health care providers around the world — which would cut an estimated $8.5 billion in aid.”
Obviously, this is terrible news for women and families everywhere. In the aforementioned article, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said the “policy could have terrible consequences for women and families around the world. I started my career working at the World Bank on health care in India. I saw firsthand how clinics funded by foreign aid are often the only source of health care for women. When women are given even the most basic health care information and services, they live longer, healthier lives — and they give birth to children who live longer, healthier lives.”
That’s major. But while health care or a lack thereof is undoubtedly important, for me the implications of the Global Gag Rule aren’t just about denying family planning and other ancillary health care services that women need, deserve and want. It’s about exerting control over more than half of the population for reasons that have nothing to do with their well-being, and everything to do ensuring there is no shift in power and control.
What happens if women are denied these types of family planning services? Let’s say they all deliver healthy babies — no doubt that absolute has already sparked all sorts of pushback in your brain because absolutes tend to do that, but bear with me — and life and death is no longer a issue. These mamas stay home with their babies, right? That’s not so bad. Kids need mamas.
Now let’s unpack that a little bit more. In many countries, including the U.S., those mamas are young, really young, school age. Having children means you don’t go to school. No school means no job. No job means no salary. No salary means no economic freedom, authority, input or power.
You see where I’m going with this? One knee-jerk policy change has impact that reverberates throughout the global community from the home to the workplace to the lack of innovation and missed opportunities some women won’t be bringing into the workplace because they won’t be there. And that policy change wasn’t spontaneous. Diversity and the word spontaneous are completely incompatible.
Yes, I know the issue is far more complex than a few pithy sentences in a blog paragraph. I’m aware. Diversity and inclusion, or a lack of those things, are systemic issues woven into the infrastructure and fabric of society’s blood. Those issues are not new. They didn’t just crop up. Therefore, spontaneity or any discussion of something similar is completely irrelevant.
And what about the generational implications of that scenario I painted with all those young mothers trapped in a cycle of ill-educated, subservient poverty? It only takes nine months to make a baby, but once he or she is here, that’s a lifelong commitment. Mama didn’t go to school. She didn’t go to work. How hard will it be for her daughter or her daughter’s daughter to do those things?
Whether it’s a tweet, or the Global Gag Rule, when push comes to shove, we women don’t have the time or the wherewithal to wait on the white, male patriarchy to determine what’s best for the course of our global lives. If women are occupied having babies and struggling with preventable female illnesses, there will be no school. Certainly there will be no advanced level schooling, which is now a requirement for advancement in our knowledge-worker-driven global marketplace.
Women don’t have time to wait or hope for spontaneous acts of diversity. No innovation-savvy workplace does either.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce magazine. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.
I’ve had an internal debate all weekend long over whether I should blog about Trump’s executive order that bans immigration from seven Muslim countries, suspends refugees for 120 days and bars all Syrian refugees indefinitely. Ultimately, I decided that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, and this issue is too important to remain silent. I choose to be on the correct side of history.
If you are a staunch defender of the president who does not care to read an opposing view, I suggest you stop reading now, and come back tomorrow for a more benign post. Or, better yet, post a comment and let’s have an intelligent debate about this issue.
And, if you choose to unfollow or unfriend me because of my opinion, you are more than welcome to do that, too. This is still America, and I respect your right to have an opinion even if I disagree with it. I hope, however, that you show me and my opinion the same respect and patriotism that I would show you and yours.
This issue, however, is not a left issue, or a right issue, or a Democrat issue, or a Republican issue. It’s also not a legal issue, even though the courts will ultimately decide its fate.
Instead, it’s a moral issue; it’s an American issue. It’s how we choose to define ourselves as Americans. It’s who we are, and, perhaps more importantly who we choose to be as a nation.
I am proud that membersofmyprofession have taken a stand, appearing at airports at all hours of the weekend to help those detained and facing deportation. I am proud of those that marched nationwide to protest Trump and his actions. And I am proud of the judge (now judges) that stood up to block this action, albeit temporarily.
As for employers (this is an employment law blog after all), some have chosen to take a stand.
We know that these are difficult circumstances, leaving many of us concerned. Binghamton University remains committed to the continued success of all of our students, regardless of religious belief, country of birth or citizenship, and we are here to provide all students and faculty with support through this difficult time.
We’re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that create barriers to bringing great talent to the U.S. We’ll continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.
We believe that immigration laws can and should protect the public without sacrificing people’s freedom of expression or religion. And we believe in the importance of protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.
Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all. Worse, these actions will make America less safe (through hatred and loss of allies) rather than more safe. A very sad week, and more to come with the lives of over 600,000 Dreamers here in a America under imminent threat. It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.
As I’ve said many times, diversity makes our team stronger. And if there’s one thing I know about the people at Apple, it’s the depth of our empathy and support for one another. It’s as important now as it’s ever been, and it will not weaken one bit. I know I can count on all of you to make sure everyone at Apple feels welcome, respected and valued. Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.
And others, like Starbucks, which promised to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years, and Lyft, which has pledged $1 million to the ACLU.
What about your workplace? How you choose to respond is a decision I cannot make for you. It will depend on your political beliefs, moral constitution, and the composition of your workforce. Know, however, that the issues of national original discrimination and religious discrimination are very much on the EEOC’s radar, and its recently appointed acting chair, Victoria Lipnic, likely will not deviate much, if at all, from this focus.
We cannot let this type of discrimination again pervade our workplaces, no matter how angry we are over the murderous crimes of a few acting in the name of Islam. …
No doubt, we live in scary times. Some well tell you (and I don’t necessarily disagree) that we are amid the third world war (even if it looks very different than any war we’ve fought before). One of this war’s battle lines will be drawn at the ballot box over the issues of immigration and immigrant rights. We must resist the urge to fight this war in our workplaces by harassing and otherwise discriminating against those who have the right to work, and enjoy that right free from discrimination and harassment.
Oh how I hate being correct in this case.
I will leave you with this thought. The plaque at the base of the Statute of Liberty reads:
Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
I remain convinced that inscription, and President Reagan’s words, are America. To my readers, prove me right, that we as a nation are better than, and not defined by, this Executive Order.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Our next nominee for the Worst Employer of 2017 comes from my very own backyard — Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
Here in Northeast Ohio we take our snow removal very seriously, especially (we hope) at the airport, where an icy or snow-covered runway could cause disaster. In 2015, airfield manager Abdul Malik-Al complained to his bosses about his belief that the airport did not sufficiently support its winter-weather crews. Those comments led to the FAA levying a $200,000 fine against the airport.
These issues, however, appear to remain. According to Scene Magazine, on Jan. 19, airfield-maintenance manager Robert Henderson allegedly rounded up his staff and threatened them with retaliation if they leaked any information to the press. Unluckily for Henderson, but luckily for us, an employee recorded his outburst:
If anybody is caught associating with anything like that, the penalties will be great. So I’m calling y’all together now. Let’s go ahead and put it out there; let’s talk about it right now. So we can get it out of the way. Because if anyone is caught sitting there having a sideline conversations about this, or with [unintelligible] did to somebody else, or let me send it to this friend or let me me do that, that could connect you with something that’s, that’s frowned upon in the organization — to take internal stuff and leak it out to the media. So please don’t engage in, in all that. I’m putting it out right here, right now. It ain’t nothing to whisper about.
Congratulations, Cleveland Hopkins Airport — or, more specifically, Robert Henderson. You are our second nominee for the Worst Employer of 2017.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
On Saturday, millions worldwide (2.6 million, according to USA Today) marched for women’s rights. On Feb. 2, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee will hold its confirmation hearing for labor secretary nominee Andrew Puzder.
“What does one have to do with the other,” you ask? Consider this —
Puzder is CEO of CKE Restaurants, the parent company for fast-food chains Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, and he approved that message.
No doubt, Puzder would be good for many issues that are important to my readers: the $15 minimum wage, the DOL’s pending overtime regulations, and the NLRB’s radical expansion of joint-employer liability. On each of these issues, he and I are in strong agreement, and I would welcome his voice leading the business charge at the DOL.
Yet he also believes that objectifying women is an acceptable way to sell burgers. On this point, he and I differ dramatically. Indeed, despite all of his other policy position, this one fact should disqualify him from heading the federal department responsible for America’s workers (46.8 percent of which are women, according to the DOL’s Women’s Bureau).
Salon quotes Puzder’s defense of his company’s ads:
I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it’s very American. I used to hear, brands take on the personality of the CEO. … And I rarely thought that was true, but I think this one, in this case, it kind of did take on my personality.
My son’s now 17, but when he was 13 he didn’t want to eat at “the king” [or] “the clown,” he wanted to eat where his brother ate, so he wanted to be a young hungry guy. I’m 64, I want to be a young hungry guy. Some young ladies in your age group like to date young hungry guys.
This “personality” has no business directing our nation’s labor policy. Surely, there must be other qualified candidates that hold similar positions of key labor issues such as minimum wage, overtime and joint employment without this sexist baggage.
On Feb. 2, I will be watching Puzder’s confirmation with great interest to see how he answers the inevitable questions about these advertisements, and with greater interest to see how the R’s on committee handle the same topic.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
It’s gloomy, it’s overcast, it’s Inauguration Day. I gotta say, I’m sad. I watched CNN as the Obamas left the White House for the last time, and it truly felt like the end of an era.
Not just because I have no idea what the next four years will bring, but because the Obamas were — are — iconic. Their poise, their elegance, their sheer presence set precedents, knocked stereotypes sideways and made a mockery of long-held beliefs about black people’s capabilities and the so-called hidden underbelly of racism in this country. That underbelly, scaly, rough and distended, came to public, neon light once President Barack Obama ascended to the highest office in the land.
But through the slights and disrespect, the opportunists who joined his Cabinet only for the springboard to other powerful, more financially lucrative roles, the relentless and rude questioning of his heritage, his background, his suitability and his intelligence, President Obama remained our leader. He remained a man of the people.
It reminds me of the first time I met him. Have I told you this one already? If so, allow me this indulgence today, hmmm? It is a great story.
When we met, President Obama was still a senator and had not yet announced his presidential candidacy. I knew it was coming; I was dating a lobbyist for the Chicago Public School system at the time, and he told me. Anyway, we were at a wedding in Hyde Park — rather, we were milling around outside on the lawn after the ceremony — and my ex introduced me.
We shook hands and smiled, and then-Sen. Obama asked me, “So, Kellye. What do you do?”
I was unemployed at the time, but I answered, “I’m a writer.”
My ex said, “No, Kellye. He means what do you do for a living.”
We both looked at him. There was an awkward, terrible pause. Then Obama said, “Oh, you’re a writer. Did I tell you that I was the editor of the Harvard Law Review?” And he went right on talking as though that fool hadn’t said a word, as though he hadn’t embarrassed me in front of a man who would later become one of the most important figures in history.
Obama gave me back my dignity after someone carelessly snatched it away, and he did so effortlessly and immediately. It spoke volumes about his character and what kind of leader he would be. I knew then that I would vote for him. And I did, twice.
There were many times over the past eight years when life — well, it happened. And when it did, I felt a mélange of things: disgust, fear, excitement, traumatized, hopeful and engaged. But through it all there was a whisper at the back of my mind that said, in the midst of this hurt, this injustice, this disappointment and tragedy, what would President Obama do? The answer was clear. When life happens, when stress at work or in life threatens one’s peace, be graceful, prepared and steadfast under pressure.
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama made me a better person. I know I’m not alone when I say that the example they set was a very high bar, but it was one I enjoyed reaching and exceeding. They let the world know what I always knew: race and gender are descriptors, accidents of birth. They should not be clear-cut signals for one’s future success.
Most minorities instinctively know this, but the pressure! The pressure the misinformed and ill-intentioned can put on you will wear you down so low, you’ll forget what you know. Doubts will creep in as enforced stereotypes and bias shape your existence in ways you didn’t agree to, but have no choice but to go along with.
The Obamas gave the country’s minority populations explicit permission to dismiss those stereotypes, to refuse to knuckle under to that bias – if not completely in workplace practice, at least in the privacy of our individual minds and hearts. I thank them for that. I thank them for setting such a lovely example for the world, and for all of us in it who needed that connection and similarity, that unwavering encouragement and audacious spirit of hope.
This morning I re-posted a list on Instagram titled The Obama Record. It featured some of the highlights from his presidency. Among them: longest streak of job growth on record, 11 million new jobs created, corporate profits up by 144 percent, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed, education and job opportunities for veterans, equal benefits for married gay couples, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
This is just a small sampling from the list, and I chose to repeat these because they speak most clearly to his efforts around diversity and inclusion and his aid to everyday employees and to the companies that employ them. President Obama cared about equality. He cared about equity, and he cared about the American workforce.
He will be greatly missed.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce magazine. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.
Fifteen years ago Workforce printed a story titled “31 Core Competencies Explained.”
Written by Edward J. Cripe and Richard S. Mansfield, the story today is one of Workforce.com’s most popular stories, generating tens of thousands of sessions a month.
Why a story published in 2002 remains so popular as we enter 2017 is something of a mystery, though one answer could be the timeless nature of the story’s content.
It is also broken into three separate components: Competencies Dealing with People; Competencies Dealing with Business; and Self-Management Competencies.
While I’m not going to go through each item — the story is more than 3,100 words — I’ve included the first three competencies under each heading. I urge you to go to 31 Core Competencies to read the full story.
—Rick Bell
Competencies Dealing with People
Establishing focus: The ability to develop and communicate goals in support of the business’ mission.
Providing motivational support: The ability to enhance others’ commitment to their work.
Fostering teamwork: As a team member, the ability and desire to work cooperatively with others on a team; as a team leader, the ability to demonstrate interest, skill and success in getting groups to learn to work together.
Competencies Dealing with Business
Diagnostic information gathering: The ability to identify the information needed to clarify a situation, seek that information from appropriate sources and use skillful questioning to draw out the information, when others are reluctant to disclose it.
Analytical thinking: The ability to tackle a problem by using a logical, systematic, sequential approach.
Forward thinking: The ability to anticipate the implications and consequences of situations and take appropriate action to be prepared for possible contingencies.
Self-Management Competencies
Self confidence: Faith in one’s own ideas and capability to be successful; willingness to take an independent position in the face of opposition.
Stress management: The ability to keep functioning effectively when under pressure and maintain self control in the face of hostility or provocation.
Personal credibility: Demonstrated concern that one be perceived as responsible, reliable and trustworthy.
Rick Bell is the editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Checking off core competencies is as important as ever to develop leadership skills.
While no one can see the future with perfect clarity, we must be prepared to adapt to whatever we encounter, not just what we expect. It is crucial then that business leaders need to start developing critical competencies now in order to be prepared for future business and leadership challenges.
Ten years ago, and again in 2016, our organization, the Center for Creative Leadership, queried its most recent database of 360 assessment responses and asked the bosses and coworkers of tens of thousands of leaders three key questions:
What leadership skills and perspectives are critical for success?
How strong is the leadership bench in these critical skills and perspectives?
And what potential pitfalls lie ahead for these leaders?
The studies included data from more than 40,000 executives rated by more than 400,000 coworkers and bosses. Using the language of the 360 assessments we deployed, they told us that leading employees; strategic perspective; decisiveness; composure; change management; and building relationships were the most critical skills in order for the organizations to survive and thrive. Interestingly, 10 years later, the list looks about the same, with composure dropping out of the top six and being a quick study replacing it.
We also asked about the skills that are most needed to ensure career success. Then and now, managing change; learning agility; interpersonal relationships; and collaboration led the list of critical skills. It’s safe to assume that as we go forward, these bedrock core competencies will remain important.
As we examine these skills that are shaping how organizations are beginning to operate differently and will operate in the future, we see the convergence of new generational preferences, new forms of technology-supported collaboration, globalization, flatter organizational structures, more open organizational boundaries, rapid advances in knowledge of all kinds, and the use of big data analytics shifting the landscape within which leaders (and others) exercise influence.
As indicated by the subtle shifts in the most important skills needed today, in today’s hyperfast world of constant complex change, there are some competencies that will rise to even greater prominence than in the past.
Discovery-based learning.
While the ability to learn has always been a desirable trait in leaders, the criticality of learning will grow in a world of fast-paced, innovation-driven change. The type of learning that will be required is not just learning from books or even experience, which in our research has accounted for about 70 percent of what leaders say they know about leadership. Now, learning agility is important, combined with learning from experiments versus relying on experience alone. This competency is exhibited through:
Curiosity and openness to new ideas and points of view.
Willingness to take calculated risks in order to learn.
The ability to structure learning experiments that produce fresh insights.
Encouraging dissent, challenge and sustained tension during the period that new ideas are being fermented.
Actively seeking input from a wide variety of sources inside and outside the organization.
Challenging the status quo; maintaining a state of perpetual interest in making things better.
Collaborative strategic decision making.
Engaging others as partners in making decisions is something that good leaders have always done. However, this was balanced in the past with a healthy dose of “willingness to take charge and make the tough calls” as an individual leader in the face of confusion or disagreement. The need to provide “leadership” was an excuse for control-oriented leaders to exercise authority even in situations where collaborative leadership might have produced better decisions. In the future, flatter organizational structures, cultures of equality and teamwork among knowledgeable contributors in and outside the organization, and less willingness on the part of members of the new generations to put up with positional power over knowledge-based power will force leaders to adapt. In his book “The Open Organization,” CEO Jim Whitehurst of software maker Red Hat describes in detail how he needed to shift his leadership style from the time that he led a turnaround at Delta Airlines to accommodate the non-hierarchical, collaborative culture of Red Hat. It is a shift that many leaders will need to make, and it requires the following capabilities:
Understanding the value of collaborative decision-making and being able to lead processes that bring out the best in what people have to offer.
Instead of “influencing without authority,” learning how to influence with authority to create interdependent rather than dependent organizational cultures.
Demonstrating authentic support for people working together to make and own decisions of importance to the future of the enterprise, when it really matters.
The ability to recognize when the need to reach consensus is driving out dissent and overpowering high-quality decision-making.
Seeking the best solution versus the most expedient one.
Shaping work for meaning.
Millennials are looking for challenging assignments that provide opportunities for learning and growth. As only about 13 percent of the workforce is highly engaged, there is much work to be done. It’s not that young people want to flee large bureaucratic organizations to join startups; most would prefer to continue to work where they are but won’t if opportunities to learn, grow and advance seem limited or a long way off. There are plenty of meaningful challenges to be tackled in large organizations but this work can’t be reserved for the few versus the many. Leaders can support and develop this organizational competency by:
Stimulating and then listening to ideas that can be translated into meaningful opportunities by those who invent them.
Acknowledging and rewarding efforts to make the organization better or more successful, especially when it is beyond job requirements or expectations.
Providing time, space and resources for innovation that anyone with a worthwhile idea can access.
Removing barriers that exist to people exploring ideas with others across the organization and outside of it.
Allowing people to assume positions of influence based on their ideas rather than their titles alone.
Activating Open Networks.
Organizations of the future will rely more on networks of temporary contributors from outside the organization much more than organizations do today. Beyond outsourcing jobs to reduce expenses, leaders of the future will recognize that the expertise and capabilities that can be captured via full-time employment are but a microcosm of the total expertise available in the global labor pool. Knowing how to create and leverage open networks will be a key differentiator between successful leaders of the past and those of the future. To realize the value of open networks, leaders must begin by:
Defining and structuring meaningful projects in which experts outside of the organization can assist.
Activating and facilitating networks of individuals collaborating virtually to bring out the best thinking and fastest speed to market.
Ensuring adequate engagement from internal resources in supporting open networks and capitalizing on their innovations to help the organization achieve optimal diversification and growth.
Influencing the activities of voluntary network contributors to “steer” them toward valued outcomes.
Learning to build more powerful open networks that seize key knowledge assets and translate them into high-payoff investments.
Leading complex and continuous change.
Leading a single complex change is difficult, but leading multiple, simultaneous complex changes requires skills of a higher order. Today, the success of single change efforts remains stuck at about 33 percent, a figure that hasn’t moved for decades despite years of research, executive education and acknowledgment that there is a serious problem here. In the future, change will be key to every major breakthrough, of which there are potentially very many. To seize these opportunities, leaders will need to up their game concerning change by taking the following steps:
Get ahead of the change curve by identifying and prioritizing opportunities more quickly.
Building greater capacity in individuals, teams, units and networks to undertake successful change.
Understanding the interdependencies of multiple simultaneous changes and address them rather than hoping that the competing demands for resources, time and attention will somehow sort themselves out.
Continuously increase the speed of change by doing it better, not pushing harder.
Pursuing vertical development.
Vertical development is adding more complex thinking capacity versus simply adding more skills to a repertoire. Since the complex challenges of the future will require systems thinking at a much higher level, leaders must be able to elevate their ability to see the entire picture and take actions that will enable long-term shifts in strategy and capabilities. Instead of breaking things down into discrete short-term activities, leaders will need to be able to balance the here and now against preparing for the future, by:
Developing the ability to see patterns and shift systems and processes to enable future possibilities.
Learning to think in terms of paradoxes or polarities instead of focusing exclusively on the ends of a continuum.
Envisioning long-term possibilities rather than being paralyzed by current limitations or barriers to innovation.
Understanding the potential of technology to transform the organization and the world.
Seeing beyond personal achievement and advancement in order to ignite collaborative efforts to achieve what would otherwise be impossible. These are just a few areas in which workforce competencies are shifting. As we begin 2017, people managers and leaders should resolve to be nimble in identifying and addressing the changing competencies for the success of your employees and your organization.
Sylvester Taylor is director of assessments, tools and publications for the Center for Creative Leadership. Bill Pasmore is an adviser to CEOs, boards and senior teams at CCL. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Some people need service dogs to get to work. But many more simply want to take their dogs to work. What is the protocol? What are the HR rules on this? And what are the penalties for illegally taking a dog to work?
Are you thinking about opening up your business to employees’ pets? You will find very few resources on the internet to help. And, you will need a written policy before you allow pets in. Here are some considerations:
People come first. Despite your desire to allow pets — whether as a perk, a recruitment tool or both — your employees still make up the core of your enterprise. If you have to choose between an employee or a pet, you should always choose the employee.
One of the biggest legal risks is the Americans with Disabilities Act. If an employee is allergic to animals, pet owners must understand that they may have to leave their animals at home as a reasonable accommodation. Other possible accommodations include creating sufficient separation between the allergic employee and the pet, segregating the pet to a specific part of the facility, or improving ventilation. Ignoring the pleas of an allergic employee, though, will open you up to potential ADA liability. On the converse, in all but the most extreme circumstances, you are likely required to allow a service dog (or miniature horse) as a reasonable accommodation, even if you prohibit all other pets.
Remember: Pets are cute, but it’s people first in the workplace.
Animals must of “office broken.” Animals with any bite history should not be permitted. Moreover, any aggressive behavior, such as growling, barking, chasing, or biting, should result in the animal’s expulsion on the first complaint. Animals should also be house broken, friendly towards people and other animals, and not protective of their owners or their owners’ spaces. Finally, you should define when animals must be leashed or caged, and what is expected of employees when they have to leave the workplace during the work day.
Respect for property. Designate a specific area outside for animals to go to the bathroom (preferably away from the entrances), and make sure pet owners understand that it is their responsibility to clean up messes outside and accidents inside.
Licenses and vaccinations. Before being permitted to bring animals to work, owners should verify that vaccinations are up to date, and that the animal licensed and free of parasites and insects.
Liability. Employees should verify, in writing, that they have sufficient home owners’ or renters’ insurance to cover any damage to person or property caused by the animal. You should also consider indemnification in case your business gets sued, and a written paycheck deduction authorization for any damage caused.
If you are considering having a pet-friendly workplace, I recommend contacting employment counsel to walk you through the risks and to assist in drafting an appropriate policy.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
