Today we have a special guest post from my beloved father, Gary Stollak. Dr. Stollak, a Professor of Psychology at Michigan State University from 1967 until 2009, has written many journal articles and is the author of several books on marriage and child rearing, including "What Happened Today; Stories for Parents and Children," and "Until We Are Six: Toward the Actualization of Our Children's Human Potential." He is fond of Stanley Kubrick movies, corned beef and pastrami sandwiches, and ice cream...sometimes even at the same time.

Most of us understand that it is necessary to receive many years of education and many hours of supervised practice (possibly, according to many, approximately 10,000 hours) for almost all careers demanding complex skills.

On October 19^th 2007, Mitt Romney, at that time a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, stated in a speech at a Values Voters Summit in Washington DC, that “Parenthood is the ultimate career for which all other careers exist.” For many commentators “Learning how to be parents is perhaps the most important task facing the human race.”

There is another, equally important, complex, and evolving “career” that demands great skills—hopefully accumulated before becoming a parent—being a committed friend, partner, and spouse.

Skills in adult-adult relationships and in parenting include, among many, being accessible; being empathic and accepting of the validity of the other’s needs, wishes, and desires; being cooperative in activities and in decision-making; and able to resolve, via negotiation and conflict-resolving skills, the inevitable conflicts of living together sharing time and space.

In these, as in many others careers, one needs to have an enduring commitment to learning motivated by passion. With practice and mentoring, there will be confidence in the knowledge and skills accumulated. Yet very few of us received any long-term formal and structured education, training, or mentoring in developing peer social skills and those relating to child caregiving.

Assuming we have acquired (and are continually increasing) knowledge that contributes to the acquisition of skills in intimate relationships and child caregiving, should we not have required K-12 education for both of these ultimate careers “for which all other careers exist”? And if we make such a commitment as a society, do we not have an obligation that educational systems have methods to assess knowledge and skills in these roles, along with the current focus in our nation on a student’s acquisition of knowledge and skills in reading and mathematics through the school years? Should there also be an equal government responsibility for such assessment, as we do for learning to drive a car or cut and shape hair, and for myriad number of other careers—including those in human resource management—demanding a diploma before licensing and before allowing practice in the career, before a couple can receive a license to marry? Should a government require prospective parents and parents of infants to participate in several year-long child caregiving education and mentoring programs that would facilitate the positive and optimal physical, psychological, and social development of their young children? The state could, at the very least, provide those participating parents a diploma…and maybe, someday, a license to parent!

Last November, I wrote about ways on influencing behavior in my statistics class, and issued a challenge to the esteemed Paul Hebert to respond. Being the mensch that Paul is, he responded with a series of posts that you can read about here and here. I took Paul's suggestions to heart and not only raised the grading scale, but also asked students about their grade expectations and how they were going to achieve it. The grading scale was published in the syllabus, and a short survey was to be completed and submitted within the first two weeks of class asking the following:

1. What specific grade is your goal for the class?
2. List 3 action steps you will take to achieve that grade
3. At what time and location will you study and work on statistics homework? Be as specific as possible.

We are in the second week of the semester, and I repeated the above exercise with my 2 sections of statistics class. As I pored over the surveys I received I decided to look back and see how students met their expectations from the previous semester.

In section A:
11 students stated their specific grade goal was an "A" (4.0)
5 students stated "A or AB" (which I counted as 3.75, though we do not offer an A/AB grade)
13 students stated "AB" (3.5)
2 students stated "AB or B" (3.25)
3 students stated "B" (3.0)
none listed a grade below a "B"
The average expected grade was thus a 3.63

Did students in this section meet or exceed their goal?
3 exceeded their grade expectations
4 met their grade expectations
27 fell below their grade expectations (with 17 receiving a full grade or more below their expectations)
The average grade received was a 2.60

What about section B?
18 students set their goal as an "A"
11 students stated a goal of "AB"
2 students stated a goal of "AB or B"
3 students stated a goal of "B"
Once again, no student listed a grade below a "B"
The average expected grade was 3.71

Once again, did students in this section meet or exceed their goal?
0 students exceeded expectation
12 met expectations
22 fell below expectations (with 13 receiving a full grade or more below their expectations)
The average grade received was a 2.91

What do I glean from this info?
1. Students have really high expectations. In a course such as statistics, where students aren't exactly beating down the door trying to get into a section, I would have thought grade expectations would have been a bit tempered.
2. Are goals and expectations the same? Is the student goal the same as what they expect to receive? Should I have also included a question about what grade they expect to receive?
3. Was an opportunity missed? Like most schools, we don't publish average grades given (let along performance evaluations) of a professor. Students rely on the grapevine to tell them about the quality and difficulty of a class. While I publish and talk about the impact of missing class and completing homework on grades, I have never published the overall average grade of the class. Would having that information have led to students lowering their expectations?

As mentioned, students were once again required to state their grade expectations for the semester. What is the breakdown across the two sections?
30 stated their goal was an "A"
9 stated their goal was an "A or AB"
12 stated their goal was "AB"
3 stated their goal was a "B"
1 stated his/her goal was a "C"
In sum, 75% expected to earn an AB or better, with the average grade expected a 3.75.

If this semester was anything like the last, many are in for a rude awakening.

I sometimes like easy categorization. For example, I can divide the world into two simple categories:
1. Never gets old
2. Grows old quickly

I'm a big Michigan State fan. You would think after going to the Final Four in men's basketball for the 6th time in 12 years, diminishing returns would set in, and my enjoyment would've gone done. Nope - it never gets old. Spending years dealing with the arrogance and cheating spewing from Ann Arbor from the bevy of Walmart Wolverines, seeing Michigan lose in basketball and football? Nope - it never gets old. However, watching MSU football choke away yet another game they should've won, and hearing "Same Old Spartans?" Yep - Grows old quickly.

In teaching, seeing students grow, mature, and devlop and find their passion never gets old. Hearing feeble excuses and lies grows old quickly.

In HR, rewarding employees in a meaningful fashion never gets old. Writing job descriptions or reviewing resumes grows old quickly.

What never gets old for you? What grows old quickly?

It's hard to believe that next week, I will start my 16th year of teaching. There's been trials and tribulations and ups and downs. I come from an academic family, so, even as a youngster, I thought I would know what to expect when I entered the classroom. Yet, I've had a few unexpected turns in my tenure:

• Having a student have her water break and go into labor during a class session. I don't recall the session for that in grad school.
• Being hit on by a student at a bar and getting a booty call at 2 a.m. in the morning.
• Living in Mississippi, let alone for five years.
• Starting over again and again

HR is a dynamic field, so it is to be expected that I would have to change textbooks regularly to keep up with changes in the law. However, I never anticipated how fluid the relationships I build with students would be. In most cases, I don't see students until their sophomore year, when they sign up for my statistics class. A fraction of those I can convince to become involved in human resources and join our SHRM student chapter. I may even get a fraction of those to join the chapter leadership and attend professional chapter meetings and HR conferences. Then, in what seems like an instant, they are gone and starting their professional careers (I am starting with an all new SHRM e-board). And, the cycle begins anew.

An influx of new students are preparing for their first year. Its too early to start saying goodbye again.

You remember this guy, don't you? Bueller? Bueller? Yes, it is Ben Stein...actor, former speechwriter for Nixon and Gerald Ford, true renaissance man. Well, when he is not pitching Clear Eyes or FreeScore.com, he is writing detailed economic screeds. This week, at the American Spectator, he gave his thoughts on the current economic maladies and the lessons we should learn from them (link here).

The money portion was his thoughts on the unemployed:

"2. The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say “generally” because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day’s work. They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job. Again, there are powerful exceptions and I know some, but when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative. To assure that a worker is not one of them, he should learn how to work and how to get along -- not always easy.

(This brings to mind an idea I have long had: that high schools and colleges should have a course on "how to get along" and "how to do a day’s work." This would include showing up in clean clothes, smelling well, having had a good breakfast, dressed in a businesslike way, calling the other employees "sir" or "ma'am" and not talking back. This would include a teaching of the fact that the employee is not there for amusement, but to help the employer make money and to get a job done. It would include the idea that once you are at work, you are not at play. It is an idea whose time has come.)"

Taken to its logical conclusion, shouldn't Ben really be praising HR Departments around the country? Through their awesome skills of talent evaluation, the HR managers have culled those with "poor working habits" and "poor personalities" from the ranks of the employed in their organization. I'm sure those at work reading this from their computer are pleased that they no longer have to put up with those "overbearing and unpleasant personalities" who add "negative utility" to the job. Isn't the workplace now a better place? Isn't everyone happy, satisfied, and more productive now that those bad apples are no longer crowding our cubicles? Isn't GDP skyrocketing?

C'mon, Ben, show HR some love!

As I was perusing consumerist.com, I came across this story regarding Chili's Restaurant and the use of FourSquare. For those too lazy to click on the link, Chili's will offer customers who check into FourSquare at one of their restaurants a special coupon for free chips and salsa. It is apparent that both Foursquare and Chili's find this beneficial: Foursquare will get more customers to use their service and Chili's will attract more customers to their store in the hopes of receiving an additional goodie.

Next month, I will be presenting at the 2010 WI SHRM State Leadership Conference on the topic of "Integrating Social Media to Attract & Retain Members." The Chili's example made me curious as to whether SHRM professional chapters could potentially use FourSquare as one such tool for membership management (as an aside, I have yetto sign up for FourSquare). For example, like Chili's, could you offer those individuals who check into a chapter meeting on FourSquare a special prize (i.e., one person could have their registration fee waived for that particular meeting).

Further, a chapter could use Foursquare as a mechanism to raise money for the SHRM Foundation. As Kyle Lacy suggests,

Users will gain points when they accomplish certain activities like checking in, making multiple stops in a day, adding a new venue, making a repeat visit, or consecutively checking into a certain location. Encourage users to rack up the points and put a value to the points they are accruing (Ex: $0.04 per point). At the end of the promotion donate the amount of money to a charity. This encourages visits to your business and gives back to those who need our help!

Does anyone know if their SHRM professional chapter uses FourSquare? If so, how? Can it be used to make your chapter meeting THE place to be for the month?

Last week, I participated as an inaugural member of the SHRM blog squad as part of the 2010 SHRM Annual Conference. Here are a few blogposts that haven't been published (to date) that highlighted some of the sessions I attended:

The Why of Work

For the past two weeks, “The Why of Work,” by David and Wendy Ulrich has been prominent on my mind. First, the excellent Blog Talk Radio Show, “HR Happy Hour” (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/steve-boese) hosted by the incomparable Steve Boese and Shauna Moerke had Dr. Ulrich on as the guest on June 10 (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/steve-boese/2010/06/11/hr-happy-hour--episode-49--the-why-of-work). Then, I perused the book on the flight from Green Bay to Minneapolis to San Diego. Finally, to cap it off, I went to see their Monday Mega-Session

In their session, the Ulrich’s attempt to answer the question, “why does meaning matter.” They presented a number of bleak statistics, such as the rise in mental health disorders and the majority of workers (59%) who are thinking of resigning. People find meaning in a variety of sources – home, social groups, hobbies, friends, and, their focus, the workplace. To generate meaning, they find that leadership is crucial. They use a TV example, comparing “The Apprentice” and “Undercover Boss.” Whereas “The Apprentice” winnows a pool of candidates to a single winner, the “Undercover Boss” uses a single example of good employee engagement to enrich thousands.

They also try to answer the question of what does it mean to have an “abundant” organization. What truly is a meaningful organization? It comes down to three things: 1) meaning for ourselves, 2) value for stakeholders, and 3) hope for humanity at large. They referenced Victor Frankl’s classic book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” where Frankl was able to find an ounce of humanity even in a concentration camp. Can workers do the same in a much less horrific environment – the workplace?

In the end, how many times have you said, “I enjoyed the movie, but the book was much better?” Here, a familiar sentiment arose. While the Ulrich’s touched upon the highlights of their book, you’d be better off heading to the source and reading their tome. And, if you weren’t able to catch the Mega-Session, catch the HR Happy Hour session with David Ulrich cited above.

The Ultimate HR Booster Shot:2010/Cases, Trends, Impact

In “The Ultimate HR Booster Shot,” presenter Mindy Chapman provided an energetic and funny look at the panoply of traps organizations may encounter that may run them afoul of the EEOC.

Chapman used the metaphor of popcorn – a single piece is small and insignificant, but a lot of those small pieces may add up – and your company is increasingly becoming a target. Since 2009, when new leadership entered the EEOC, the number of charges has been on the rise.

This is particularly problematic for a number of reasons – the high cost of defense and the negative impact on culture, brand, and stock will be the same regardless of outcome. Further, your name can appear on a Google search long after the case has been arrived.

To “salt” the popcorn, Chapman noted 17 non-monetary requirements the EEOC may impose, such as annual nationwide EEOC training of the entire workforce, rewriting EEO procedures, providing new employee training within 30 days, and hiring an outside party to conduct the investigations. Even worse, the penalties can last up to 5 years and the EEOC can make you call customers. Looking at the “kernels” more closely, Chapman looked at the primary and secondary characteristics that can make a company more vulnerable.

Finally, Chapman presented an EEOC check-up of nearly 50 cases where companies have failed to live up to their EEO obligations. Using clever terms such as “No More Horseplay” (where a male supervisor was pulling on an employee pants, eventually leading to a female’s pants falling to the ground) and the “ZipLipper” (where a supervisor was making derogatory comments about an applicant’s physical deformities), Chapman did an excellent job of engaging the audience on a topic which some might find boring.

The one thing that was missing was the mention of the significant absence of human resources in preventing many of these cases. Was this a failure of training or selection? Why was the organization finding itself getting sued despite the fact that the primary EEOC laws were written in the previous century? One can only hope that the practitioners in the session will take the warning signs presented by Chapman to be more vigilant in their own workplaces.

Digital Quicksand: Avoid Time-Sucking Habits in a Web 2.0 World

As someone who spends a lot of time on social media (the selection to the SHRM blog squad might be one manifestation), Laura Stack’s session on managing social media OCD was particularly appropriate.

Stack highlighted 10 ways to make social media a value-added activity, rather than a suck on one’s time. These included such items as:

1. Understanding why you’re doing it – one should be purposeful and focused by establishing meaningful goals

2. Establish a routine – dedicate blocks of time to check your social media.

3. Avoid distractions – turn off those notifications, such as the “chirps” you hear while using Tweetdeck, or the phone buzzing when you have a new Facebook message.

4. Don’t use real time – use technology such as Hootsuiee or Social Oomph to schedule tweets

5. Don’t do anything manually – use autoresponder programs such as Aweber

While these were helpful suggestions, the presentation was a mixed bag.

· I would have liked to have seen more research on time management. For example, in Dan Ariely’s new book, “The Upside of Irrationality,” he cites studies that show that completing undesirable tasks in a single block is preferable than breaking it up into chunks. Meanwhile, breaking up tasks we enjoy (such as showing commercials during TV shows) actually increase one’s enjoyment of the task.

· The setting would have been more appropriate in a classroom where people had their laptops/desktops in front of them. She showed some excellent step-by-step instructions on certain social media tools, but the transfer of learning was diminished as few in the audience were able to apply the knowledge directly.

· During the Twitter backchannel, Eric Winegardner (www.twitter.com/ewmonster) of Monster.com made an astute point; that while scheduling tweets or using autoresponders might save time, they miss a crucial aspect of the social media experience – engagement! Its tough to build rapport and relationships without that real time interaction.