Do you scare people?

Evidently, I do, on occasion. A male colleague once confided in me that when we first met, “you kind of scared me a little.” That stopped me short.  Me, “scary”? I did a quick mental checklist:

1. Frightening facial hair and/or markings? No.
2. Tendency to growl or make other creepy noises? Nope.
3. Verbal references to scary things like zombies, catastrophes, or impending doom? Nuh-uh.

So what gives?

Luckily for me, by the time my colleague shared this with me, we had established a good working relationship. I was able to follow up: “Scary, really? What do you mean?”  It turns out that because I approach my work with a sense of purpose and gusto, I appeared formidable to him. My enthusiasm and ability to move a project forward was, to him, a bit intimidating at first.

I can live with that.

What I can’t live with is the way that our society often equates women who are comfortable in their power with fear. Articles like Why Successful Women Terrify Us show that both men and women have trepidations about the interplay of professional women, power and the workplace.

I don’t have a problem with being powerful as long as it’s used properly. It’s not power that’s scary; abuse of power is. Every day, you have the choice to decide: how will I use my power?

Will you use your powe

r to intimidate or to attract? 

Fear-based motives produce interactions that are intimidating, which repels people. When you act with the intention to attract people – to invite them into conversation and action, you use the power of who you are to create positive, mutually beneficial work relationships.

The conversation with my colleague did allow for some reflection. Did I come on too strong in our first meetings? Most likely. Was I appropriately collaborative? Yes, but there’s always room for improvement.  But I won’t apologize for being intense, upbeat and driven to action. That’s who I am. My colleague’s feedback was a gift: pay closer attention to the impact you’re having on people, Jen.  At the same time, if I’m acting with integrity and positive intentions and that still scares someone, then that’s their problem and not mine. I won’t apologize for staying connected to my power.

How do you stay connected to your power?

Photo credit: iStockphoto

About the author: For 20+ years, Jennifer V. Miller has been helping professionals “master the people equation” to maximize their personal influence. A former HR generalist and training manager, she now advises executives on how to create positive, productive workplace environments. She is the founder and Managing Partner of SkillSource and blogs at The People Equation. You can connect with Jennifer on Twitter as @JenniferVMiller.

This is the 8th post in our Women of HR series focusing on career. Read along, consider the advice and we invite you to comment with insights of your own.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to work for yourself? First of all, consider these factors to determine if your temperament is a good fit for self-employment. If the answer is yes, then you’ve cleared the first hurdle, but you still aren’t home free.

Before self-employment becomes a viable option, be sure you’re not buying into any of the myths out there that may lead you astray. As a self-employed home-based business owner since 1995, I’m here to debunk those myths and further help you determine if you should hang out your shingle.  Trust me, it’s not for everyone.

Here are four misconceptions of small business ownership that I’ve repeatedly encountered over the past seventeen years:

Consultants make big bucks. Oh, if I had a dollar for every time somebody said this to me I would be rich! Usually, the conversation goes something like this:

They: So, Jennifer, you’re a consultant, right?

Me: Yes I am.

They: Well, our company hired a fancy-pants consultant last month. Geez, the daily fees that guy got! I wish I could earn that kind of money. You must do OK for yourself, huh?

This is one of the biggest myths I encounter about self-employment. People with this mindset lack a fundamental understanding of how small businesses operate. That “daily fee” the consultant charges is the company’s revenue, not the consultant’s paycheck. Out of that dollar amount comes any cost of goods sold (for example, the personality assessments that I purchase from a publisher), utilities, office supplies and so forth. After I pay all my bills and if there is money left, then I pay myself. Some months, there is no paycheck.

Working from home means less daycare costs. Big. Fat. Lie. Sure, now that my kids are older, I can sneak in some phone conferences and a quick check of emails. But if you want to do heavy thinking work, or lead a conference call, then you’ll need someone besides you to handle the daycare. Nothing kills your aura of professionalism like hearing strains of “Mommy, Charlie just threw up!” in the background while you’re trying to conduct a business call.

You’ll have more flexibility in your schedule. Well, sort of. Being independently employed does mean that you can arrange your schedule in whatever way you want it. I have found however, that Murphy’s Law is very much in effect when it comes to client needs. It never fails that a client needs something urgently during the time you’ve blocked out for your “flexible” schedule. And, if you are flying solo like I am, then there are very few to whom you can make the hand off.

The write-offs are a huge perk. Yet more evidence that the person saying this to me doesn’t understand a basic Profit & Loss statement. Yes, there are many things small business owners can write off, but it’s not like the amount written off goes straight into our pockets. The “write off” reduces the tax liability, but it’s not like some amazing rebate plan. Items like meals eaten during business meetings and certain travel expenditures are only partially deductible.

So, still think you’re ready to make the leap into self-employment? Then let me be the first to offer you encouragement. It has the potential to be an extremely rewarding career. It’s a choice I’ve never regretted and hope you will find as much satisfaction as I have. Drop me a line and let me know if you take the plunge.

These days, the Peanuts character Lucy is a bully and they’re not going to allow it anymore.

At least, that’s the deal according to the administrators at my kids’ school system, who ditched the time-honored tradition of watching It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown in the elementary schools during their Halloween parties because “Lucy is a bully.” I confess to doing some heavy eye-rolling at this decision. After all, Lucy’s been bossing people around since 1950. It’s Lucy for crying out loud; that’s how she rolls.

But consider the larger context of this decision: it’s not only our schools where the definition of “bully” has changed. The term “workplace bullying” is becoming commonplace and this has implications for both managers and human resource professionals. Employees are paying attention to bosses who retaliate, which is considered a form of bullying. According to an EEOC press release, in 2010 for the first time ever, retaliation surpassed race as the most frequently filed discrimination charge.

The Workplace Bullying Institute website defines workplace bullying as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators that takes one or more of the following forms:

• Verbal abuse
• Offensive conduct/behaviors (including nonverbal) which are threatening, humiliating, or intimidating
• Work interference — sabotage — which prevents work from getting done”

If using the definition above, most managers would absolve themselves of being a bully. They understand that blatant verbal abuse and aggressive behavior of any type is not acceptable managerial behavior. But what about those behaviors that might have been deemed OK in the past, but are now seen as inappropriate? What about the Lucys out there who are navigating a changed boss/employee landscape? They are the self-described “tough” bosses. Their reaction to claims of bullying might be: “Geez, lighten up, I was just joking!” or “Tell them to quit whining”.

As a human resources professional, how do you help managers sort out the difference between being simply “tough” and being a bully? This is how I break it down:

A tough boss has employees’ best interests in mind. The tough boss challenges employees to think beyond their current capabilities, to go beyond what they thought they could do. Tough bosses have difficult conversations. They don’t shy away from poor performance; they address it immediately. The tough boss might not be “warm and fuzzy” but they are compassionate. The one thing a tough boss will never do is belittle their employees in any way.

If a manager’s actions create a sense of feeling belittled by the employee, then the manager has crossed the line into bullying. It may not have been intentional, but there it is.

In human resources, one of the most difficult tasks you face is that of ensuring your employees’ safety— and not the kind that you report with OSHA. It’s the lack of psychological safety that takes a hard-to-measure toll on your workforce. You can help your management staff see their role in providing this type of “safety” by helping them understand the evolving use of the word “bully.” Helping them stay focused on being a tough boss rather than a bully helps create the productive, non-toxic work environment all human resources professionals should strive for.

Photo credit: peanuts.wikia.com

My 11-year-old came home the other day clutching a job application in his hand. He told me that he had to fill it out because he was applying for the job of computer technician for his 5^th grade class. We reviewed the application together. It was pretty standard job application fare: name, contact information, skills/qualifications and of course references.

He needed 2 references. We couldn’t reach his baseball coach, but after a quick phone call across the state to Grandpa, he had 1 reference. The application was due the next day, so I reluctantly agreed to be a reference for him. I mean, I’m his mother. Of course I think he’s wonderful.  So how valuable would that reference be?

But then again, I also know way too much about him. Bless my naive son—he had absolutely no idea the damage I could have done, if he were an actual job applicant in the real world.

I think it’s a point that many real-life job applicants fail to understand as well, especially those new to the job market that may not have a whole lot of options for their reference list. They think that asking a long-time friend or relative might be a good move—“Hey, they’ve known me a long time, they can vouch for me”. Sure, but they also know all of your dirty little secrets. Maybe they’ll be discreet enough to avoid mentioning anything bad.  But then again, maybe they won’t.

When I mentor young people seeking their first professional job, I always counsel them to consider:

Who in your world will paint you in the best possible light with the most specific examples?

People tend to look for references that will do the “positive painting” but overlook the specificity part. If the reference can only give a general, glowing report, it won’t be of much use to the job applicant. So, I try to help job applicants think through their list of contacts with an eye towards concrete accomplishments.

Back to my kid: a few days after he turned in his job application, he interviewed for the job. He must have done well because he got the job. His teacher never called me for that reference. But it would have been OK. I used to work in HR. I know how to give specific, concrete examples of an applicant’s qualifications. Even if he is my son.

Photo credit: iStockphoto

It’s long been HR’s dirty little secret: the unemployed don’t always get a fair shake at the interview table. This notion was explored on NPR’s Talk of the Nation program in a segment titled The Hard Truth: Companies Don’t Hire Unemployed. It’s something human resources professionals would not care to admit but it exists: there’s a negative bias towards the unemployed job applicant.

The “secret” has been brought right into the light of day. Now, some companies are broadcasting their bias overtly: if you’re unemployed, don’t bother sending a resume.  As if being unemployed wasn’t bad enough, out-of-work people can add “discrimination” to their list of woes.  And so far, it’s perfectly legal.

According to the EEOC, there is a trend in publicly advertised job postings:  some employers and staffing agencies now specifically state that “only employed candidates need apply.” So far, the only state that outlaws this practice is New Jersey. The EEOC is investigating the trend to determine not only its scope, but its legality. For now, it’s perfectly legal for prospective employers to screen via a person’s employment status.

It’s this kind of candidate selection practice that gives Scott Adams fuel for Catbert the Evil HR Manager.  To my way of thinking, it may be legal to screen via a candidate’s employment status, but is it moral? Isn’t there any room left for the “human” in the human resources field? Is it truly necessary to kick a person when he’s down due to unemployment? We can all tell stories of perfectly competent people, who, through no fault of their own, are currently without a job.

Many will make the case that the longer a person is out of a job, the less “fresh” their job skills are. The NPR article cites professionals in the IT and Sales fields as two examples where evidently, people’s skills decay as quickly as last week’s lettuce.

I don’t buy that line of thinking. While it’s true that technology changes rapidly, people can learn rapidly too. Furthermore, people have many skills that never get old—strong  work ethic, creativity, teamwork—to name a few. To screen out a candidate before she even has a chance to articulate what’s she’s been doing during her unemployed status is ridiculous. It robs the employer of a potentially qualified candidate—one that is likely to be grateful to have a job and ready to give her all.

The only thing that screening for employment will do is decrease (by a fraction) the number of resumes on a recruiter’s or HR manager’s desk.  In itself, unemployment is not necessarily a predictor of successful future employment. In order to determine how good a fit the applicant’s skills will be, someone needs to first talk with him or her. This conversation can’t happen if job seekers are banned from applying in the first place.

What do you think—is the practice of screening for unemployment truly a trend on the rise? Or, is it just a blip in the recruiting landscape that’s being driven by high unemployment?

Photo credit iStockphoto

I live in Michigan, a state with an 11% unemployment rate. Employers seeking qualified candidates should have no problem filling open jobs, right?

Not necessarily, according to an expert I heard speak at a local Workforce Issues panel discussion. George Bosnjak, Business Development Manager for the Grand Rapids-based economic development organization The Right Place Program, addressed a large auditorium of business professionals saying, “Leaders tell us that they’re having a hard time finding the right people” to fill their open positions.

This is not the first time I’ve heard this phenomenon reported. Every time I hear (or read) this, I think “Seriously?! How can that be?”

So, 11% unemployment (not even counting the underemployed) and employers can’t find the right people?  That begs the question: just what exactly comprises the “right people”?  If there are millions of people seeking employment in our country, yet company leaders believe there’s a dearth of employees with the “right” skills, clearly there’s a disconnect somewhere.

During the Q&A portion of the panel discussion, a lively discussion ensued about this apparent gap between desired skills and available workers. As the questions flowed to the panelists, I sensed that some of my fellow audience members were also wondering, “How can this be?”  Here are some reasons that audience members offered for the gap:

The Needle in the Haystack Effect: Finding the “needle” is even more difficult these days because the “haystack” is so enormous. With so many people out of work, the Human Resources department has to sift through giant mountains of resumes for even the most entry-level job.

50-Mile Radius Test: For higher-level positions, many executives are enamored with finding the perfect candidate– (wrongly) assuming that a candidate can only be an “expert” if they hail (like the old saying goes) from a location more than 50 miles away. So, local job seekers get the brush-off in favor of out-of-state candidates.

No Industry Experience:  Many job-seekers in the audience lamented the fact that they possessed all necessary skills to interview for a job, barring one: industry-specific experience.  Of course, in this economy, employers can afford to be picky, weeding out people with non-industry experience. Some job candidates wondered if this approach was short-sighted on the employers’ part. Many in the audience felt that industry knowledge can be acquired, but commitment to the local community may not be as easy to come by.

Wooing the Reluctant: Employers want applicants with a more global worldview. Oftentimes, this means that local talent isn’t the first choice for a prime job opening. Local candidates find themselves saying, “Pick us! We choose to live here. Don’t spend your time trying to convince someone from Spain that she’ll love the snow here in Michigan.”

These were a few of the suggested reasons for the “no talent available” challenge espoused by hiring companies. I realize that this is a complicated issue. Just because there are many people out of work doesn’t mean that their current skill set matches the needs of the current job openings.  Yet based on the robust conversation I participated in last week, it definitely appears that there is a gap. There are talented, willing and able workers ready to be employed. And there’s an employer base stymied by a perceived lack of a talent pool. To me, it seems that there’s no lack of talent, so what is the problem?

What am I missing here? Is it really that our country has a lack of talent, that the “right” people are not available? Or is something else at play?  What would you add to the list of reasons why this disconnection between the employable and the employer persists?

Photo credit iStockphoto

Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.  

                                                        – Ghandi

For all the strides women have made in the workplace over the past 50 years, dual standards still exist that cause roadblocks to career success.

Meghan Casserly’s article on Forbes.com called The Bitching Point highlights the bind that assertive women often find themselves in: act with too much authority and you’re given the ignominious B-word label; not enough and you’re deemed unsuitable leadership material.

Yes, these double standards tick women off. In fact, if we let it, our anger could really get in the way of progress. 

Lucky for us though, it doesn’t. 

Historically, women have not had access to many of the societal levers of power— land ownership, voting rights, marital equality and so on.  Therefore we’ve had centuries of practice in learning to creatively overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of our goals. That history works in our favor, according to Yale psychology professor Susan Nolen-Hoeksema.  Nolen-Hoeksema is the author of The Power of Women and she has uncovered an interesting differentiator in the way that men and women handle anger. 

Women don’t get mad. They get creative.

Well, actually, of course women get mad. But it’s what they do with the anger that sets them up for handling obstacles in a uniquely female way. Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema cites research in which men and women were asked to recall and write about a personal experience that made them angry. Similar percentages of both genders were able to easily write a brief synopsis of the event that elicited anger. Then, the participants in the studies were given a choice: choose to continue writing about the event, or move to a new task. Nearly twice as many women as men chose to move on to a new activity. 

The researchers concluded that while both genders are equally predisposed to experience the emotion of anger, women were able to move to problem-solving more quickly than their male counterparts, choosing to focus on overcoming the obstacle rather than seeking some sort of resolution or retribution.

Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema sees this ability to focus on solutions rather than retribution as part of a larger skill set of “mental strength,” which allows a woman be “very creative in finding solutions, focusing on getting things done, not just on doing things their way.”  This creativity is what propels us forward, helps us manage the still-present double standards that impede our acceptance as true leaders in the workplace.

For all the women out there still struggling with those dual standards, take heart. Your sisters before you coped and you can too. The next time you’re feeling ticked at an inequity, acknowledge your anger and then, use it as a catalyst to help you devise a creative solution that will propel you towards your goals.

Photo credit iStock Photo