I'm here in Orlando for the 2nd WorkHuman Conference (subtitled Even More Work and Even More Human).  Here are some quick takeaways from this morning's festivities:

The production has been top-notch

As somehow who has been involved in the planning of the WI SHRM State Conference for the past 10 years, I know the trials and tribulations of putting on a show.  They have done a magnificent job of being on brand, with quality facilities, good food, and stellar graphics for the presentation.  Even small touches have stood out, from a cookie/donut wall and coloring charts and tables, to fruit infused water and a holistic approach to the schedule.

Shawn Achor highlighted the importance of happiness

I had seen Shawn Achor speak before, and he continued to enrapture the audience in the ease with which he translated research into easy to understand practice.  According to Achor, it’s “the joy you feel striving toward your potential.” This potential extends beyond yourself to unlocking the potential in others.  As a result, the breadth and depth of social relationships are crucial to one's happiness.

We are still striving for answers when it comes to performance, recognition, and compensation

As Eric Mosley noted, clearly annual performance reviews are not working.  Similarly, lump sum bonuses given once have a short impact; less than six weeks.  And, compensation budgets for recognition continue to be tiny.  However, I'm not convinced more frequent, smaller bonuses are necessarily better.  Do $50 bonuses given 100 times over the year create more sustained motivation than a single $5000 bonus given once?  Does the 25th time one is awarded that $50 bonus have the same impact as the first, or are there diminishing marginal returns?  

 

I'm back from the now annual trip to the NBA Summer League in Las Vegas with most of the 8 Man Rotation (Steve Boese, Kris Dunn, Lance Haun).  The trip was filled with good food, conversation, music (in the form of Soundgarden and Nine Inch Nails in concert) and, of course, basketball.  So, what can be gleaned from a 3 day trip watching exhibition basketball?  You can read Steve's take here and Kris' take here.   Here's mine:

"You'll be pleased" is the new "Fine."
Over burgers at Bobby Flay's Burger Palace, discussion turned to reference checks and performance reviews.  A little less than two years ago, K.D. wrote that "neutral is the new negative," meaning that if the person giving the reference is only sharing basic info, the candidate is not likely to be a star at your organization.  Further, like "awesome," "fine" has become overused and lost any authenticity when it comes to praise.  If a person says an applicant or performer is "fine," are you buying that he or she is of quality?  So, what did the group settle on as an authentic phrase of praise?  "You'll be pleased."  For example, to Atlanta Hawks superfan K.D., "You'll be pleased with 1st round draft pick from Michigan State, Adriean Payne."   


EVERYONE is looking to make an impression
Not only are players looking to become one of the chosen 450 to make an NBA roster, coaches are trying to move up the ranks, and refs are trying to make the big show.  But, even behind the scenes, moves are trying to be made.  You have the overenthusiastic announcer trying to show off his chops, "Dennis Horner from the Corner!" 
"P.J. Hairston with the flush!"  You also had the singer of the national anthem.  Who was he?  Not sure?  Did he do a competent job?  Yes.  Was he paid?  Probably not.  But, like the HR blogger being told that writing on a blog will give him/her valuable "exposure," I'm positive someone somewhere gave the singer advice that such a performance will lead to gigs down the road.

EVERYONE thinks they know talent
Rodney Hood, formerly of Duke, and now part of the Utah Jazz...not a fan.  Here's his stats for the 5 summer league games he played:

Game 1: 3-of-13 from the floor, 1-of-10 from 3, nine points
Game 2: 11-of-16 from the floor, 7-of-10 from 3, 29 points
Game 3: 1-of-9 from the floor, 0-of-2 from 3, three points
Game 4: 7-of-11 from the floor, 1-of-3 from 3, 19 points
Game 5: 2-of-8 from the floor, 1-of-3 from 3, seven points 

Needless to say, I pointed out his shortcomings rather loudly during his mediocre game 5 performance.  Who took exception?  The trio of 10-year-old boys in front of me who knew he was the best player on the court.


If the three takes regarding the 2014 Summer League are not enough, feel free to listen to the 27-minute HR Happy Hour podcast summing up the weekend here 

In late April, Robert Galbraith published his first novel - a mystery called "The Cuckoo's Calling" -  to rave reviews but relatively few purchases.  Yesterday, Robert Galbraith's book was languishing at 4,709 on Amazon's bestseller list with 1500 sales. Now, the book's sitting at number 1; a 156,866% sales increase in 1 day.

What was responsible for such a dramatic change in fortune?

Robert Galbraith was revealed to be the psuedonym of a little known author named J.K. Rowling.  

How often did people pass by the book at their local Barnes & Noble (they still exist, right?) and not give it a second glance simply because of the name of the author?

And, how often do we in HR look over a resume or judge performance simply by looking at the name of the applicant or employee?

It's an all to familiar lesson -  you can't judge a book by its cover - literally.
 

The New York Times had a piece this past Sunday on "32 innovations that will change your tomorrow," several of which impact the world of work.  Here are a select few:

Given the huge expense of workers' compensation, and the increasing time we spend at our desks staring at a computer screen, this will be a must in any workplace.



This one will be fun, but controversial.  Who would love to have this at a movie theater or a noisy restaurant?  Who wouldn't like to shut up the individual who is droning on and on, or the loudmouth who is dominating a meeting?  But, who makes the decision to use the SpeechJammer?  Is this something that could be anonymously applied?  Will we see SpeechJammer duels at sunrise?

15. THE KINDNESS HACK
Are people building the time for altruistic tasks into their daily planners or PDAs? How many managers are adding this tool into their daily toolbox?


Is this a viable managerial strategy, even in the short-run?  Would managers be willing to trade the minor gains for a deterioration of trust in the long run?

Check out the full list of ideas here

It was odd today (as a long-time Michigan State football fan) to read of Arkansas' hire of John L. Smith, as their interim head football coach.  Oy, this is painful....

Do they not recall his coaching gaffe (and subsequent rant) after MSU attempted a FG to go up 20-7 in Columbus in 2005 with seconds left in the 2nd quarter, only to have it blocked and returned for a defensive TD to make it 17-14 at the half.  "The kids are playing their tails off and the coaches are screwing it up!!!"


Do they not recall the slap he gave himself after his team gave up a 16 point lead in the fourth quarter to Notre Dame in 2006?



Do they not recall that he chose to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro, instead of being present at his own coaching camp, thereby alienating several potential MSU recruits? What kind of leader does that?

Do they not recall that he was hired at his alma mater, Weber State, 3.5 months ago, and just finished his first spring practice, leaving them high and dry?  Of course, you have the typical coach speak at the time of that hire at Weber State, "I have made it to big time. I truly believe that. I'm back and happy to be here. And thankful" as well as:

Our goal is to make Weber State a national champion in football. OK? We're going to spout it ... We're going to tell recruits about it (including those who signed in February?). Come here if you want to be national champ. Because that's what we're going to get done. That dream is there. That goal is there.

I guess that's true...until Arkansas calls.


Do they not recall how he was hired to MSU in the first place, where his players learned of his pending departure to Michigan State at halftime of Louisville's 38-15 loss to Marshall in the GMAC Bowl on Dec. 18, 2002?  What kind of leader does that?


And all of this is even more ridiculous in light of the recent strife between Wisconsin basketball coach Bo Ryan and former recruit Jarrod Uthoff. In short, Uthoff, unhappy with his time spent at Wisconsin, decided he wanted to transfer, only to find himself blocked from going to a number of schools because Ryan thought he might play that team in the near future.  Coaches get a free pass to come and go, while players are at the mercy of the system.  Oy.

It makes you want to stop following sports at times.

Would you take a chance on a guy like Smith?

In the most recent ESPN- The Magazine,  Peter Keating highlights a study on sleep by Stanford researcher Cheri Mah, who explored the question, does extra sleep boost athletic achievement?

Over three seasons, from 2005 to 2008, the scientists looked at 11 Stanford basketball players.  For two to four weeks, the Cardinal kept to their normal schedules.  Then for five to seven weeks, they watched what they drank, took daytime naps and tried to sleep for 10 hours every night.  After increasing their daily rest, the players sprinted faster and said they felt better in practices and games.  Their aim got better too: Their three-point shooting humped 9.2 percentage points, and their free throw percentage increased by nine points.

What is responsible for this improved performance?  According to Keating:

Some of our genes act as internal clocks and release hormones according to cycles called circadian rhythms, which are triggered by darkness and light and alternate over 24-hour periods.  When we mess with these rhythms by not getting enough sleep, our metabolism of glucose (which gives us energy) declines, and our level of cortisol (which causes stress) increases.  Further, sleeping for longer stretches is naturally anabolic: During deep sleep, our bodies release growth hormone, which stimulates the healing and growth of muscle and bone.  So while it's possible to push through a lack of sleep during any one day, proper sleep helps athletes in two ways.  First, it boosts areas of performance that require top-notch cognitive function, like reaction time and hand-eye coordination.  Second, it aids recovery from tough games and workouts.

 HR professionals could glean a couple of insights from this study.  First, despite our best laid plans, our training, incentives, and motivation will likely have muted impact if employees are coming in tired.   Further, instead of stocking our refrigerators with Mountain Dew and 5 Hour Energy Drink, and keeping the coffee pot brewing, we would be better off setting up a number of nap rooms.

The University of Illinois Men's Basketball program has a long, storied, and successful history with 17 Big Ten championships and 5 trips to the NCAA Final Four, and one national championship (in 1915, though).  Unfortunately, U of I basketball has fallen on some hard times.  Having not advanced to the Sweet 16 since 2005, and not qualifying for the NCAA tournament after a sterling 15-3 start, head coach Bruce Weber was unceremoniously fired at the end of the season.

Among college basketball jobs, finding a replacement should have been a "slam dunk."  Why?

• Low competition statewide - Illinois is perceived as the best program in the state
• Access to talent/recruiting base - the Chicago area is considered fertile recruiting ground, producing such stars as Antoine Walker, Michael Finley, Mark Aguirre, Tim Hardaway, Dwayne Wade, and Derrick Rose.  Current high school players such as Jabari Parker and Cliff Alexander are considered top 10  in the nation
• Tradition and history of success - as noted above, the Illini have had great success to sell applicants
• Fan Support - even being 2 hours away from Chicago, Assembly Hall is almost always sold out with fans decked out in orange.
• Conference Affiliation - Given the Illini are part of the Big 10, any coach will be well-compensated and get plenty of face time on the Big Ten Network, which can promote future recruiting.

No less than Seth Davis, Sports Illustrated and CBS Sports college basketball expert, has declared the Illinois job "one of the top 10 college basketball jobs in America."

If the job is so wonderful, shouldn't applicants from "lesser" programs be knocking down the door?   Further, there is only one other "top notch" job out there competing for candidates - Mississippi State. Yet, at least 5 candidates have already turned down the offer or resisted possible overtures:

• Shaka Smart, who led VCU to the Final Four in 2011, was reportedly guaranteed facility improvements, a long-term contract for as high as 8 years, and a salary comparable to Michigan State's Tom Izzo, who makes more than $3 million a year (Smart makes $1.285 million at VCU)
• Brad Stevens, who led Butler University to consecutive National Championship games in 2010 and 201, turned down a reported 8 year, $21 million salary to remain at his current place of employment
• Anthony Grant of Alabama has expressed no interest
• Leonard Hamilton at Florida State is comfortable in his current position
• Washington's Lorenzo Romar is also staying in his job.

 So, why the resistance?  Among the more public reasons:

• Outdated facilities - Assemby Hall is 49 years old.  Even with major renovations, Illinois remains behind in the "arms race," with competitors such as Michigan State and Ohio State.
• Champaign is not Chicago - enough said
• A major administration shake-up - The Athletic Director, President, and head coach all lost their jobs within 116 days of one another.  That kind of turmoil can make it difficult to attract top notch candidates

Here's the problem for Illinois...when these things hang around and the perception is that you're turned down by guy after guy (or that they "have no interest" in your job), you do damage to the way your program is viewed.  They're theoretically the prettiest girl at the prom and nobody seems to want to get out on the dance floor with them.

Sometimes the position is not as good as you think it is.

I just returned from Las Vegas where I spent 4 days watching the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament at one of their fine sports books.  Its always fun to join together with others and hear people go crazy when the outcome of the game is certain but whether North Carolina and Creighton will scored over or under 160.5 points is not (the final total was 160.0).

Similarly, its fun to hear and complain about the performance of the 3 referees assigned to each tournament game. Its a thankless job.   Many make the refs the scapegoat when the outcome of the game does not turn out in their favor.  Ask many Alabama Crimson Tide fans about the end of their tournament game when Trevor Releford's last second shot clearly showed he was fouled, and no call was made.

At the same time, put yourselves in the shoes of the ref for a moment.  How many of you:

• walk into your workplace already knowing many people are against you before a second of actual job performance has occurred?
• could perform your job in front of tens of thousands of people at relatively meager pay?
• could stand up to having made a decision and have it suddenly reviewed with instant replay, knowing that decision could possibly be overturned?

It brings to mind the classic Seinfeld episode where he gets heckled at the job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiiD4Qzk0w

His revenge?  Going to her job and heckling her.

Could you handle the refs coming to your place and watch you perform for eight hours a day?

Meanwhile, I'll try to remain calm when the refs do their job, even when they call 3 quick fouls on Michigan State in a span of 12 seconds in the 2nd half of a close game (really?  really?!?!?)

I'm not afraid to admit that, under pressure, I may not have performed to the best of my ability.  I may have whiffed during a crucial interview or two.  However, I never had a day as bad as Billy Cundiff in this year's AFC championship game.

With mere seconds left, Cundiff had an opportunity to kick a short 32-yard FG to send his Baltimore Ravens into overtime against the New England Patriots.  However, despite not missing a fourth quarter FG all season, the kick sailed left, and the Ravens ended their season just short of the ultimate goal - a trip to the Super Bowl.

So, why do we find ourselves being unable to perform up to par when the pressure comes, despite years of experience to the contrary?  A recent ESPN - The Magazine article examined new approaches to this very question.  One such approach involves what is called heart rate variability (HRV):

Designed by the research company HeartMath, the emWave examines in real time how athletes are responding to old sports psychology tricks like visualization and meditative breathing.  It's the same gimo used by military elite tactical teams to regulate stress levels before deployment.

The goal of HeartMath is to help athletes reach a state of "coherence;" gentle, repeating HRV waves that reflect feelings of gratitude and love.  

So, why can't even the best of us reach that coherent state?

A semiconsensus is developing among the most advanced scientists.  In the typical fight-or-flight scenario, scary high-pressure moment X assaults the senses and is routed to the amygdala, aka the unconscious fear center.  For well-trained athletes, that's not a problem: a field goal kick, golf swing or free throw is an ingrained action stored in the striatum, the brain's autopilot.  The prefrontal cortex, our analytical thinker, doesn't even need to show up. But under the gun, that super-smart part of the brain thinks it's so great and tries to butt in.

It's not stress that causes problems, it is thinking about it too much that is too blame.

The jury still is out as to the true effectiveness of HeartMath's approach, but it might provide an additional tool in a manager's belt as he or she addresses poor performance by an employee.

Its mid-March...one of my favorite times of the year.  Why?  It means the Men's Division I NCAA basketball tournament, aka "March Madness" is about to begin.  As a graduate of Michigan State University, how could I not love it?  Over the past 14 years, Coach Tom Izzo has led the Spartans to 6 Final Fours and a National Championship.  This year looks promising for the Spartans as well, earning a number one seed in the tournament...which usually means success, as Izzo has made it to the Final Four three previous times as a number one seed.

One of my favorite metrics for the tournament (as well as filling out those darned brackets for the office pool) was coined by Pete Tiernan at CBS Sports -  "Performance Against Seed Expectations" or PASE - which compares a coach's actual winning record to his expected performance based on seeding.  According to Tiernan:

PASE is a simple concept.  Every seed has recorded an average number of wins per tourney in the modern era.  The average top seed wins 3.37 games per dance, two seeds win 2.43 (almost one game less), three seeds win 1.86 and so on.  When the coach of a top-seeded team wins four games to reach the Final Four, he overperforms by .63 games.  If he wins the championship, he exceeds seed expectations by 2.63 games.

By adding up a coach's year-by-year performance, one can come up with the average games per tourney he deviated from the expected victory total.  Associated with PASE, is what Tiernan calls "Seed Overachievement Rate," or "SOAR, which simply takes the number of times a coach has exceeded seed expectations out of the number of appearances.

So, who are the coaches that consistently outperform what they were expected to do?

Not surprisingly, Izzo leads the way.  Based on seeding, his Spartan teams should've won 22.3 games in 14 tournament appearances.  However, with Izzo's teams averaging about a 5 seed in the tournament (5.21), yet he has won 12.726 more games than what his seed should dictate, for a PASE of .909 (12.726/14); in essence, one should count on an Izzo team to win nearly one more game than the seed he is given.  Similarly, Izzo's teams have outperformed their seed 10 times in those 14 appearances for a SOAR of 71.4%  With a minimum of 5 tourney appearances, other coaches in this year's tournament who might carry one farther than expected:
*John Beilein of Michigan with a PASE of .705 and SOAR of 83.3%
*Steve Fisher of San Diego State with a PASE of .610 and SOAR of 36.4%
*Billy Donovan of Florida with a PASE of .563 and SOAR of 45.5%
*Jim Calhoun of UConn with a PASE of .493 and SOAR of 52.6%
*Rick Pitino of Louisville with a PASE of .466 and a SOAR of 46.7%
*Coach K of Duke with a PASE of .426 and a SOAR of 50.0%

Of course, there are those coaches who will let you down every year.  Who consistently underperforms?

DePaul coach Oliver Purnell has consistently been shown to be a bad bet in your brackets with a PASE of -.813.  In six trips, Purnell should have won five games based on seed expectations; he won none.  Kevin Stallings has been a victim of three straight one-and-dones for Vanderbilt - all of them when seeded fourth or fifth, earning him a PASE of -.373.  Some other coaches and teams you might be wary of heading into the Tourney (and in your office pool):
*Mike Montgomery of California with a PASE of -.419
*Mike Brey of Notre Dame with a PASE of -.370
*Dave Rose of BYU with a PASE of -.354
*Steve Alford of New Mexico with a PASE of .343
*Fran Dunphy of Temple has a PASE of -.341

Certainly, one could argue that perhaps it is a function of a poor job of the NCAA Tourney Committee who under- or over-seeded these teams in the first place.  However, over 5-plus appearances, actual performance seems to take precedence.

So, HR folks - who are your employees who exceed your expectations?  Do they match up with Coach Izzo's performance, or are you working with a number of Oliver Purnells?

....and good luck filling out your brackets.

In my efforts as professor, I have always been interested in the effect altering class policies and changing incentives has on student behavior. I fiddle around with changing attendance policies, the grading scale, the number of exams, the point values of exams to see the impact on how students approach the class.

For the past few semesters in the statistics class I teach, I've asked students to fill out a survey telling me things such as the name they liked to be called, their e-mail, etc. One question I've asked recently is "what specific goal is your grade for the class?" Assuming that students are not exactly thrilled about taking the subject, and assuming the students have the foresight to know it is a tough subject, I've expected an array of answers crossing the spectrum of the grading scale. However, the Lake Wobegon effect has held true, and the students have responded with very high opinions of themselves. Last semester, some 65 students answered, on average, a goal of 3.77 on a 4.0 scale (while the final average grade was a 2.77....I'm sure there were quite a few disappointed souls).

This semester is no different. Once again, the average grade goal was 3.77. In one section 23 (of 31) students had an A for their goal, with another 4 stating an "AB." In the second section, 18 (of 28) listed an "A" as their goal with another 8 listing an "AB." Only one student across two sections listed a grade below a "B."

I added a new question this semester, asking students, "What specific grade do you expect to receive in this class?" immediately after the question about their grade goal. Were students confident in their stated goal, or did they have high aspirations, but knew they realistically might not achieve them? 86% (51 out of 59) thought they would receive the grade they set as a goal.

So, the results beg a number of questions:
1. Is there a student grapevine? When I was choosing classes as an undergraduate, I would ask around about which professor to take, and how difficult he or she might be. Whenever I return exams, students always compare their scores to the person next to them. Are students sharing this information outside of the classroom as well? Do students really know how difficult the class might be?
2. Should we be managing expectations of students? Should I publish the average grade of previous semesters in my syllabi each semester, so that students know what grade they are likely to earn? Should the average grade be published when students register for classes (along with teacher ratings)? What other efforts should be made to temper student expectations?
3. What role does external or internal locus of control play?

I'm sure there is a study in here somewhere.

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.