As an educator and advisor to a SHRM student chapter, I am always looking for excellent resources that will help my students prepare for the workplace and their career. With that in mind, "Rock the PHR HR Certification Handbook" is a welcome addition to that pool of resources.

Compiled by Ben Eubanks (UpstartHR.com) with able assistance from April Dowling (psuedohr.com), "Rock the PHR" outlines a 10-week guide to taking the PHR exam, starting with tips to get you started, going through each of the areas the PHR exam covers, and closing with game day suggestions.

There are several things I liked about the handbook:

1. It comes from the voice of experience. Ben highlights the trials and tribulations of prepping for the exam, pointing out the pitfalls you want to watch out for, as well as an appropriate pace to help you succeed.
2. It incorporates social media. The handbook includes links to a lot of helpful, up-to-date, free resources that go beyond an Intro to HR textbook.
3. Author accessibility. In addition to the handbook, Ben is more than willing to be contacted to address any concerns you might have regarding the PHR exam. Try that with one of those high-falutin' textbook authors!
4. The price (at least until September 1). For $10, not only do you get the handbook, and the author accessibility, but in the coming weeks, additional material will be included to further augment your preparation for the exam.

In sum, the "Rock the PHR" handbook is a worthy purchase for someone looking to take the PHR exam.

It was with equal parts laughter, derision, and shock that I read of a recent college graduate who is suing her former school for $70,000 when she found that she was unable to find suitable employment:

Thompson, a graduate of Monroe College, is suing her school for the $70,000 she spent on tuition because she hasn't found solid employment since receiving her bachelor's degree in April, according to a published report.

The business-oriented school in the Bronx didn't do enough to help her find a job, Thompson alleges, so she wants a refund. The college says it does plenty for grads.

Instead of blaming the economy, her own lack of experience, poor job interviewing skills, she puts the blame on the college. Was she seeking the degree, but not the education? Perhaps the potential employers did not want to hire people who do not take responsibility for themselves and are not inclined toward action, not whining? What role does parenting play in preparing children for potential failure?

As a professor, I often hear horror stories from colleagues about receiving calls from parents regarding grades, registration for classes, career advisement, etc. We call them "helicopters" as they are always hovering over their children. Fortunately, I have not received such a call, but it reminds me of a classic "Everybody Loves Raymond" episode called "The Lucky Suit" where Robert goes into a job interview with the FBI, only to be torpedoed by the well-meaning efforts of his mom:

Lucky Suit - Clip 1

Lucky Suit - Clip 2

Any experiences of your own with "helicopter" parents?

On Wednesday and Thursday, I will be attending the WI SHRM State Leadership Conference at the Hotel Mead in Wisconsin Rapids, WI. I will be responsible for conducting a breakout session involving two SHRM core leadership areas - Workforce Readiness and College Relations. In mid-July, the Conference Board, in conjunction with SHRM, ASTD, and Corporate Voices for Working Families, released a research report entitled, "The Ill-Prepared U.S. Workforce: Exploring the Challenges of Employer-Provided Workforce Readiness Training." (SHRM membership required to access).

In a survey of 217 employers,

Employers report hiring substantial number of new entrants who are poorly prepared, requiring additional company investment to improve workforce readiness skills. And while many employers provide workforce readiness or remedial training to bring their new entrants up to speed, many report less than strong results.

In an effort to see the readiness of college students to enter the workplace, I surveyed 45 attendees of the conference (6 students, 39 HR professionals). Students were asked to rate how strong they possess a number of competencies (problem solving skills, written communication skills, computer proficiency, etc.) on a scale of "1 - very weak" to "5 - very strong." HR professionals were similarly asked to what extent college graduates entering the job market possess those same competencies, with a similar scale.

Students perceived themselves as being "strong" or "very strong" on virtually all the competencies/applied skills, with the highest percentage (50%) claiming they are very strong on "discipline/work ethic." Students felt they were weakest in the areas of "negotiation skills" (50% felt they were "weak" or "neither weak nor strong"), and "ability to handle conflict/criticism" (33% indicated they were "weak" or "neither weak nor strong").

In contrast, HR professionals indicated that students were weakest in "discipline/work ethic" (44%). However, they concurred with students with regard to "negotiation skills" (only 14% thought students were "strong" or "very strong") and "ability to handle conflict/criticism" (only 11.6% thought students were "strong" or "very strong").

Obviously, there is a sample size issue given the low number of students participating in the survey, but it should prove interesting to see the discussion on how we can improve the relationship between students and HR professionals as students prepare for their senior year, and beyond.

In the morning, I usually do a morning surf of the blogosphere to read the latest missives that have been published. One of my regular stops is Glenn Greenwald's column at salon.com. As usual, he has an excellent post on journalism and the Constitution. Here is an excerpt from today's column:

By the design of the Founders, most American political issues are driven by the vicissitudes of political realities, shaped by practicalities and resolved by horse-trading compromises among competing factions. But not all political questions were to be subject to that process. Some were intended to be immunized from those influences. Those were called "principles," or "rights," or "guarantees" -- and what distinguishes them from garden-variety political disputes is precisely that they were intended to be both absolute and adhered to regardless of what Massing calls "the practical considerations policymakers must contend with."

We don't have to guess what those principles are. The Founders created documents -- principally the Constitution -- which had as their purpose enumerating the principles that were to be immunized from such "practical considerations." All one has to do in order to understand their supreme status is to understand the core principle of Constitutional guarantees: no acts of Government can conflict with these principles or violate them for any reason. And all one has to do to appreciate their absolute, unyielding essence is to read how they're written: The President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Even policies which enjoy majoritarian support and ample "practical" justification will be invalid -- nullified -- if they violate those guarantees.

He goes on to write:

Those principles are absolute and unyielding by their nature. Garden-variety political questions -- what should be the highest tax rate? what kind of health care policy should the government adopt? to what extent should the government regulate private industry? -- are ones intended to be driven by "the practical considerations policymakers must contend with." But questions about our basic liberties and core premises of our government -- presidential adherence to the law, providing due process before sticking people in cages, spying on Americans only with probable cause search warrants, treating all citizens including high political officials equally under the law -- are supposed to be immune from such "practical" and ephemeral influences. Those principles, by definition, prevail in undiluted form regardless of public opinion and regardless of the "practical" needs of political officials. That should not be controversial; that is the central republican premise for how our political system was designed.

With that in mind, what are the core premises that HR must follow versus the practical considerations must follow? What are the "MUSTS?"

After a week of excess (trip to KC for BBQ and baseball, bachelor party in Chicago, Coldplay at Alpine Valley in WI, Brewers baseball), its back to reality and thinking about fall classes.

One of the things I am pondering adding is a social media component to my intro to HR class. I would like it to be more than having everyone join twitter or start a blog.

What ways should social media be added into a HR curriculum?

I'm often asked "what is my most interesting teaching experience?" Well....

For me, the most interesting student interaction I've experienced was in my early career. I was in the middle of a Thursday morning lecture/discussion when a student started to get up to leave the class.

The student behind her asked, "Are you okay?"

She replied, nonchalantly, "Oh...my water broke."

Needless to say, I was dumbstruck. I do not remember the grad school class that provided any sort of discussion of what to do when a student goes into labor. Do I get some hot water? Towels? Calipers? Somehow, instinct kicked in, and I walked her to the dean's office where an ambulance was called to take her to the hospital.

I managed to amble back to class and finish, half-heartedly, the day's discussion. More surprisingly, the student was back in class Monday morning ready to dig into learning yet again.

Summer is always a good time to catch up on TV shows that I miss during the fall or spring, and haven't found the time to fit into my busy schedule. One of the shows I am catching up on this summer is "Burn Notice." The tag line for the show is "When spies get fired, they don’t get a letter from human resources....they get BURNED."

Michael Westen is a McGyver-esque spy who finds himself without a job, no access to his bank accounts, and no idea for the reason behind his dismissal. In his quest to find out the rationale, he takes on a number of side projects that utilize his intelligence, charm, and spy abilities to earn money.

I am only a few episodes into the first season, and I am sure it will move closer to Michael finding out the answers (though it is now in its 3rd season, which makes me wonder how long they intend to drag it out). However, it makes wonder why someone at his level of competence would get "burned?" Is he simply just another at-will employee? He demonstrates compassion through the first few episodes, he shows excellent performance on the job. What might be the reason?