This question showed up on one of the networking boards from a "professional" speaker: "I've been asked to write an article on Cultural Competency as it relates to one's speaking skills. Can anyone help me define this term more clearly?"
Did someone just admit that they have no clue about the subject matter on which they are writing a contracted article? Will this article appear in a publication in which the writer will be seen as an authority on the subject? Will there be a disclaimer at the top of the page which reads: The author of this article is not an authority on the subject of Cultural Competency and, in fact, had no prior knowledge of the subject prior to this article. Please read this article for your amusement only as the author writes it from neither a depth of knowledge or a depth of experience on the subject? No it won't.
Some unsuspecting reader will probably ask the author to facilitate a workshop on the subject - a subject the author has neither knowledge nor experience in - just because they wrote an article. Asking a (un)professional speaker to speak on a subject not within his or her realm of expertise is like asking a car salesman to sell yellow-cake uranium to a foreign country. But sales is sales right? How about selling a photocopier to a person who wants to buy a postage machine? Both make imprints on paper - close enough.
Unfortunately, many (un)professional speakers will take the work and the money and they will be, at the very best, incredibly mediocre. At the very worst, they may actually do damage to your organization.
You may think that speaking is speaking right? Change that attitude. Think of it as professional training where people's minds, hearts and livelihood depend on the person at the front of the room speaking from either a depth of knowledge or a depth of experience.
Change your attitude on professional speakers being experts in everything. They are not. Do not allow these amateurs to mess with your people's minds. If the speaker you're looking at has more than 3 different areas they claim to be an "expert" in, keep searching. If you're expecting to make your organization better, get a real expert. Pay the money and do it right. Don't "cheap out" when it comes to your people. You can't afford it.
83kfzr95x2
--
Attitude w/ ATTITUDE
Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email
Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns
The Official Kevin Burns YouTube Channel
Showing posts with label professional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professional. Show all posts
Monday, October 05, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Résumé Is Dead
What is a résumé? It’s nothing more than a collection of things you’ve done in your work life – a sort-of “eulogy” at work. Oh sure, it may also point out some skills that you were allowed to use while on the job but it really gives no indication of your aptitude, your natural talents nor your values and attitudes toward the work world.
Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, once said, “You are not paid for what you have done in the past. You are paid for what you’re about to do in the future.”
Isn’t it interesting that you (boss or HR professional) decide who you want to interview is based purely on what your candidate may have done in the past – not what they are about to do in the future.
Why is the résumé dead?
The great leaders of tomorrow and those who will change the world, including your organization, will be the people with ideas and those who will challenge the standard workforce strategy. They won’t be hired because of their résumés. And as long as you continue to believe that the résumé is the best way to find a suitable candidate to fill a position, you will be eating the dust of the organizations who have found a way to attract people with brains, ideas, values, ethics and a shared-effort philosophy. These people are found in chat rooms, blogging, e-networking, texting and hanging out with those of like-mind.
Who do you think would bring your organization a higher degree of greatness: a person looking for a job (armed with a résumé) or one who is already sharing ideas with others (armed with a Blog, followers and a huge network)? Which of the two choices do you think would give you better results in the future?
The résumé is dead.
Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, once said, “You are not paid for what you have done in the past. You are paid for what you’re about to do in the future.”
Isn’t it interesting that you (boss or HR professional) decide who you want to interview is based purely on what your candidate may have done in the past – not what they are about to do in the future.
Why is the résumé dead?
- There is no indication from a résumé of what heights could have possibly been reached – only what someone has been given the opportunity to do.
- There is no indication from a résumé of what a candidate is capable of learning – only what they have learned in the past, what school they graduated from and what pieces of paper (degrees) they may hold (relevant or not).
- There is no indication from a résumé that a particular candidate could be the next great leader for your organization – especially if never given the opportunity to lead.
- There is no indication from a résumé of how brilliant a mind may be when hidden behind average grades and average positions in an organization – especially if the candidate was kept down by a tyrant boss.
- There is no indication from a résumé of values and ethics being paramount – especially if only ever given a lowly entry-level position and no opportunity to provide input.
- There is no indication from a résumé that a candidate is a decent human being – credentials on a wall don’t make you decent.
The great leaders of tomorrow and those who will change the world, including your organization, will be the people with ideas and those who will challenge the standard workforce strategy. They won’t be hired because of their résumés. And as long as you continue to believe that the résumé is the best way to find a suitable candidate to fill a position, you will be eating the dust of the organizations who have found a way to attract people with brains, ideas, values, ethics and a shared-effort philosophy. These people are found in chat rooms, blogging, e-networking, texting and hanging out with those of like-mind.
Who do you think would bring your organization a higher degree of greatness: a person looking for a job (armed with a résumé) or one who is already sharing ideas with others (armed with a Blog, followers and a huge network)? Which of the two choices do you think would give you better results in the future?
The résumé is dead.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Featured Expert in Safe Supervisor Magazine
Safe Supervisor magazine is a monthly publication dedicated to helping Occupational Health & Safety managers, supervisors and foremen become more effective in their jobs.
Last week, Dave Duncan of Safe Supervisor, interviewed me on a host of topics related to safety in the workplace. Primarily, our discussion centered around how to get non-complying workers to come around and to embrace the on-the-job safety procedures.
Safety Naggers Need a Bag of New Tricks
This is a two-part series on how supervisors can deal with workers who have an “attitude” and resist working safely. The first segment will look at how supervisors can approach such workers in a manner that doesn’t involve nagging. Part two will examine what supervisors can do to rein in workplace “cowboys” and what can be done when words aren’t enough to budge a bad safety attitude.
The interview is a two-part series that will be published in both the February and March 2009 editions of Safety Supervisor.
Safety IS an Attitude!
Last week, Dave Duncan of Safe Supervisor, interviewed me on a host of topics related to safety in the workplace. Primarily, our discussion centered around how to get non-complying workers to come around and to embrace the on-the-job safety procedures.
Safety Naggers Need a Bag of New Tricks
This is a two-part series on how supervisors can deal with workers who have an “attitude” and resist working safely. The first segment will look at how supervisors can approach such workers in a manner that doesn’t involve nagging. Part two will examine what supervisors can do to rein in workplace “cowboys” and what can be done when words aren’t enough to budge a bad safety attitude.
The interview is a two-part series that will be published in both the February and March 2009 editions of Safety Supervisor.
Safety IS an Attitude!
Thursday, September 04, 2008
One Person Makes Every Decision
Here’s a question that was posed to me this week: what do you think is the major cause for an organization suffering unnecessary employee attrition or turnover?
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people would point the finger at: bad hiring, bad management, poor wages, stifling organizational culture, not keeping promises, misrepresentation of the work involved or failure to align with the corporate vision or mission statement.
There are a ton of possible reasons, most of them pointing the finger at a nebulous position or something else. Have we lost sight of the prime component here? Don't we undertsand that as long as we blame an entity or a position that we can’t quantify, that we will continue to face the same issues?
What about the employee who “needs” daily ego-stroking? Is it management’s job or the responsibility of “culture” to ensure that needy employees get their daily dose of Vitamin “Ego?” Not every single employee is cut from the same cloth. Just because they may have attended the same school doesn’t mean they have the same qualities and values as the next person.
HR needs to stop considering candidates for interview primarily from resumes. The world is changing. The new generation of worker bounces around from job-to-job looking for a fit. The new generation of workers doesn’t interview as well as older workers (unless they can interview by text message). The new generation of worker doesn’t even think like their interviewer (generational gaps). Can your HR department figure out what makes this worker tick?
Ask yourself this question: when your place of business has an opening, does it simply hire a body or does your place of work see the value and skill-set in a potential candidate and make a place for that person? There's a difference. Discover what your people are really good at and encourage them to do what they do best. Then hire someone else to do the work not being done but make sure they want to do it.
Want to change the culture? Change the people. I’m not talking about firing the lot. I’m talking about providing tools that employees could grow as people, could get better, more confident, build their individual self-esteem, improve their decision-making capacity, improve their communication skills and improve their daily dispositions and attitudes. Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. It’s soft skills training. But if you really want to grow your organization you will first have to grow your people.
Organizations work fine. It’s people who screw them up. Fix the individual and you will fix the organization and the performance of the organization. But unfortunately, we’ve become a society of finger-pointers and blamers. And in doing so, it’s easy to blame an entity or a title (department) for the results.
In fact, some will actually argue with me that it’s got to be harder than just making the people better. My response is; have you tried it yet? Have you fully experienced poor results from actually implementing some sort of personal-development culture within your organization and can, from a place of experience, say it doesn’t work because you’ve actually tried it?
Attitude Adjustment: If you don’t make a change on the focus of the problem, you will never solve it. Every decision, every success and every screw-up in every organization can be traced back to just one person. Improve the person and you improve the decision. Improve the person and you improve the work. Improve the person and you improve the performance. Improve the person and you improve the attitude towards the job. Improve the person and you improve the attrition rate. Simple huh? Now stop blaming “management” for not allowing this to happen and go talk to the one person who can make the decision. It all boils down to one person – always.
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people would point the finger at: bad hiring, bad management, poor wages, stifling organizational culture, not keeping promises, misrepresentation of the work involved or failure to align with the corporate vision or mission statement.
There are a ton of possible reasons, most of them pointing the finger at a nebulous position or something else. Have we lost sight of the prime component here? Don't we undertsand that as long as we blame an entity or a position that we can’t quantify, that we will continue to face the same issues?
What about the employee who “needs” daily ego-stroking? Is it management’s job or the responsibility of “culture” to ensure that needy employees get their daily dose of Vitamin “Ego?” Not every single employee is cut from the same cloth. Just because they may have attended the same school doesn’t mean they have the same qualities and values as the next person.
HR needs to stop considering candidates for interview primarily from resumes. The world is changing. The new generation of worker bounces around from job-to-job looking for a fit. The new generation of workers doesn’t interview as well as older workers (unless they can interview by text message). The new generation of worker doesn’t even think like their interviewer (generational gaps). Can your HR department figure out what makes this worker tick?
Ask yourself this question: when your place of business has an opening, does it simply hire a body or does your place of work see the value and skill-set in a potential candidate and make a place for that person? There's a difference. Discover what your people are really good at and encourage them to do what they do best. Then hire someone else to do the work not being done but make sure they want to do it.
Want to change the culture? Change the people. I’m not talking about firing the lot. I’m talking about providing tools that employees could grow as people, could get better, more confident, build their individual self-esteem, improve their decision-making capacity, improve their communication skills and improve their daily dispositions and attitudes. Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. It’s soft skills training. But if you really want to grow your organization you will first have to grow your people.
Organizations work fine. It’s people who screw them up. Fix the individual and you will fix the organization and the performance of the organization. But unfortunately, we’ve become a society of finger-pointers and blamers. And in doing so, it’s easy to blame an entity or a title (department) for the results.
In fact, some will actually argue with me that it’s got to be harder than just making the people better. My response is; have you tried it yet? Have you fully experienced poor results from actually implementing some sort of personal-development culture within your organization and can, from a place of experience, say it doesn’t work because you’ve actually tried it?
Attitude Adjustment: If you don’t make a change on the focus of the problem, you will never solve it. Every decision, every success and every screw-up in every organization can be traced back to just one person. Improve the person and you improve the decision. Improve the person and you improve the work. Improve the person and you improve the performance. Improve the person and you improve the attitude towards the job. Improve the person and you improve the attrition rate. Simple huh? Now stop blaming “management” for not allowing this to happen and go talk to the one person who can make the decision. It all boils down to one person – always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)