Given that I worked in HR and also pulled pranks on people, I worked on some rules of guidance for April Fools jokes at the office.

1. The golden rule: Don’t prank what you wouldn’t want to be pranked on – This one is simple: if you would freak out over a fake spider in your chair, you probably shouldn’t do it to a coworker.
2. Don’t prank when you can’t take it – Is there anything worse than the guy that just wants to be the pranker but not the prankee? I guarantee you, if you pull something on April 1st, you will get yours later down the line.
3. Don’t call in fake serious injuries or other catastrophes – Especially for spouses, kids or company bank accounts. People freak out over that stuff and it isn’t funny.
4. It is the thought that counts – Just being mean (like throwing water balloons) is dumb. If you know someone hates pickles on their sandwiches, take them out to eat and then order a sandwich with a pound of pickles only for your co-worker. That’s the stuff that works. Personalize your gag for the person.
5. April 1st is a culture pulse – You know what happened when I hated my job? I didn’t participate in April Fools day. Not that you have to in order to have a good culture (maybe your culture is just serious) but bring some perspective to the table if you are unhappy about people “wasting time” on pranks.

That’s pretty much it. Remember to click on links with caution today!

I have.

Here’s my hunch: it probably isn’t a branding issue. Most company and personal branding issues at their core are issues with their product or partner relations.

(That statement is probably causing some furious marketing guy or gal who specializes in branding to write a long retort. Maybe I should clarify?)

Okay, so there is an instance where branding is an issue: You’ve got a great product but nobody knows about it. Even then though, it really is more of a PR or advertising issue than a branding issue.

Let’s Fix The Product And Relationships, Not The Brand

Take Monster.com. They are well known to both consumers and business owners. At times, their product is bashed as expensive, ineffective and losing relevancy. Yet what is the solution that many analysts (and Monster themselves) have recommended over the years? Rebrand, rebrand, rebrand.

It doesn’t work. Look at Monster through the years (historical images courtesy of archive.org):

Click through to each one of those sites and it screams at you to SEARCH FOR A JOB. For ten FREAKING years, that’s been the message. So what exactly is there to rebrand? Monster.com has a branding problem only if SEARCH FOR A JOB isn’t the primary purpose of the site. I suspect that Monster.com thinks that searching for a job is still incredibly important. Just a hunch.

Certainly part of the brand is reputation. So if Monster.com has a branding problem because of reputation, it is probably due to either a product issue or a bunch of busted up relationships with important people. That doesn’t mean you spend a couple mil on rebranding your product with a slick logo, front page redesign and an ad in the NY Times, you spend a couple mil on fixing your product and repairing those relationships. The brand improvement will ultimately follow those two actions.

Monster may be figuring this out. They put Eric Winegardner out in their community of business partners. They may have figured out that fixing the brand means fixing the core issues that will help improve both their brand and profitability.

Personal Branding Mission: You Are Who You Are

Some say Generation Y may not be getting jobs because they aren’t properly marketing themselves. They turn to personal branding to boost their profiles. Sites like Brazen Careerist actively encourage their Gen Y members to post to their “idea” stream. Since millennials don’t have much experience, they have to compensate by creating a stream of ideas that may or may not impress the ruling class of Boomers and Gen Xers.

Here’s what I know: it is a stretch to build a personal brand on ideas. Again, the brand isn’t the problem here. The problem is that there is little experience to backup those ideas. And great ideas don’t come without context and understanding. And context and understanding doesn’t just come from thin air.

Instead of worrying about personal branding, how about worrying about doing things that create both experience and ideas? If you ever get to the point where you have to worry about how you are going to position all of these great experiences, then you can talk about branding. I don’t want to read another blog by a so called “web design expert” that has been freelancing for three months and their entire portfolio fits above the fold on my browser. Whoever is telling people that assuming the role of an expert is good for their personal brand when they are not an expert is just giving really terrible advice.

We Cling To Brand Because It Is Easy

It is easy to blame a brand. It is easier to rebrand. It doesn’t take any responsibility for a broken business process (or your own experiences). It simply says “No, we’re not the problem. Other people’s perceptions of us are the real problem here.” And then you make your can smile and do other superficial actions and it makes us think that image is the only problem to address. That’s like changing a lamp shade when a light bulb goes out. The image of that lamp shade is projected from the source and you’ve done nothing to change that source. Nobody cares about a pretty lamp shade without a light behind it.

At Steve’s latest forum, he asked attendees to tackle the intersection of organizational silos and HR and how they can be overcome. There were three critical questions that he asked forum members to answer.

What keeps us in silos at work?

• Organizational structure favors this. It doesn’t mean that it’s bad, it just means that it’s how organizations have been designed to be efficient.  It is the “classical” model to have groups in functions that support their essential functions within the company.

• Company cultures reinforce this. This is where organizational design turns ugly.  The culture looks for people to stay in their silo because that is what is expected.  If people tend to want to cross “silos”, they are seen more often in a negative light.

• Perceptions of others. We like to see other people in their silos.  It is easier for us to “label” them and understand or “perceive” what they do.  HR is as guilty of this as anyone.  We want to label people as “Marketing” or “Finance” or “Sales” when we don’t want to be labeled ourselves.  We need to all remember that we’re in business.

• Conformity is expected. Company norms help define a culture and companies shouldn’t apologize for that.  However, conformity becomes bad when the conformity expected is poor behavior, unethical practices, or discriminatory.  There is no call for that kind of conformity.

• Job expectations. Our jobs can absolutely keep us in our silos.  Most people have more than full plates.  Not all of the work may be meaningful, but it does keep us tied to our departments and functions.

• We like them. We even use words like “team” to mask the silo that it allows.  People like to be on teams, so we march right along.  Look at “cross-functional” teams with people from other areas.  They are really more effective, but they have a much longer normalization process.

What keeps HR in a silo as a profession?

• The perception of HR. Many in HR feel that no one outside of HR can understand the pain and suffering HR goes through in order to exist.  When you throw in all the traditional monikers for HR: The police, the “No” people, the grim reapers, the party planners, the no fun department, etc, perception is a problem.  It is difficult to be in a profession where we’ve allowed these to be the descriptors of an entire industry.

• We allow these perceptions because we’re sissies. HR has chosen too often to be the company doormat instead of the company leader.  The constant fear of litigation paralyzes HR and it shouldn’t.  Also, instead of confronting others with the truth regarding issues such as performance, engagement and development, we continue to pander to people including Senior Management.

• Working with people IS tough. People are fascinating and offer incredible strength, insight, value and innovation every day but they can also be difficult to work with.  It just depends on how HR views people and how HR models behavior to others.  It’s past time to take on the naysayers in organizations and work from a position of strength.

• We took the “H” out of “HR.” HR has thrived on being administratively strong in spite of people.  Look at the literature, the training material and the constant barrage of paper that continues to hit us.  The fact of compliance and regulations won’t ease up in the near future.  HR has to be in the “human” business if they want to be seen as valuable.

• Not seen as a resource. If HR always acts beat down, why would people come to them?  This comment smacks of siloed life very well.  If we’re always distant and aloof, we can’t be a resource.

How can we realistically change this?

• Solution: Out vs. In. We need to get away from our desks and dive into the sea of people we work with.  Yes, it is challenging, but in a very vivid way!  Remember, when you leave your desk, it doesn’t miss you.  HR needs to understand the pulse of the culture and you can only do that by being with the people in your company.

• Solution: Integrate HR across all departments. The old model of HR is where people came to HR when there was either a serious Employee Relations problem or if an administrative need was at hand. An integrated organization has HR in all departments because all departments have people. Years ago SHRM encouraged HR to get a “seat at the table” and HR struggled to even understand how to do it.  This model shows that HR can be strategic if it’s integrated.  Being at the table never meant only getting “C-Suite” positions, attending endless meetings and making sure our metrics translated into business language.

• Solution: Be in “business” and not “HR.” We can only be outside of our silo if we consciously live outside of it.  HR has to understand that the true measure of success is if the company they work for succeeds.  All the programs and initiatives of the world won’t matter if the company you work for doesn’t exist. Your job is to help your company do what it does to stay in business.

What do you think? Did these folks hit the mark?

Welcome to the company you will retire with. No, it is not GM, Boeing, or for that matter any of those companies your parents begged you to submit your resume to. The company I am speaking of is a little smaller.  It is the company of You or You Inc.

I know there have been several books written on this topic so we don’t need to go into this too deeply. You can find their glossy covered hardbacks sitting on the shelf at your local Barnes & Noble. I’m not here to cover that which has been covered so well, I want to try shed some light on how this has impacted the employee/employer social contract. You, Inc. changes everything!

The old social contract defines a “great” job as:

• Providing long-term steady employment
• With a company whose brand could see them through tough times
• Providing great advancement opportunities
• Providing great health care & retirement benefits
• A team you can get to know and form relationships with

At its worst, any job described like the one above is a complete lie. At its best, it is a fantasy that the employer would really like to believe in. The reality is much different. Everyone knows this except the CEO who still thinks the old social contract attracts top talent.

Luckily for American businesses, top talent has embraced the new social contract. This contract can be extremely beneficial if understood and properly implemented. That contract says: “I am here to do my best and all I ask is that you take good care of me while I take good care of you.”

“Taking care” means:

• Shifting from “future” benefits to “instant” benefits (free sodas are still popular)
• Adding career building skills and experiences to their toolbox
• Give them a good reference (fire your lawyer and see the bigger picture here)
• Allowing them to participate in a short-term (first) & long-term (second) vision they can believe in
• Provide a support network (both on the job and after the job)
• Allow them to take their job home with them and bring their life to work
• Skip the politics (if they are a five on their review mark it a five and don’t tell them it has to be a four so they have somewhere to go next year).
• Honesty is the best policy. They cannot help if they do not know & they want to help!

Since employee engagement is the Holy Grail and inherently linked to the social contract, the contrast between the first and second list should change the way we think about engagement. If we want engaged employee we must start with a different conversation and leverage a different set of tools.

Please don’t mourn the passing of the old contract. American business needs the new contract. They need to quickly build teams and just as quickly tear them back down. They need to be able to go to a team in San Francisco for design, a team in Chicago for product development and a team in China for manufacturing. They need to be able to flex and bend quickly.

Flexibility cannot be accomplished if we have sold the entire workforce on the old contract. Embrace the Gig Economy. Make a promise to fill the toolbox of your staff while they are on the team. Recognize that them leaving the company, is the cheapest training you can buy. Maintain a relationship so they can bring their new skills back.

Basically understand that Cradle-to-Grave care for your employee (or the Humans that you work with) is no longer an optional strategy! Top talent does not have to work for you.  They are in demand in any economy and they will pick your competitor.  Tremendous competitive advantage can be gained by embracing the new social contract. Fear not, our best days are in front of us. Change is not bad – fighting it is.

Change is the only universal constant. You can be on one of two positions in respect to change:

• You can drive change.
• Or be driven BY change.

Those who are the victims of change find that changes are usually for the worse.

Those who drive change, find that the changes are usually to their advantage

• Do not be passive in the face of change.
• Be active in the face of change.

In order for you to effectively manage a changing environment, you need to first:

Take the initiative: Be the instigator of change.

In order to take the initiative and become the driver of circumstances, follow this five step process.

The process can be reduced to six words

1. Purpose
2. Plan
3. Action
4. Feedback
5. Adapt
6. Repeat

Let us analyse the meaning of these six words:

Step One: Purpose

Your purpose is your aim, or ultimate goal. Develop a clear set of progressive goals for the next three, six or twelve months. Set your mind onto the achievement of specific goals, in order to inform your decisions on a day to day basis.

• Goals allow you to develop a psychology that is “goal focused”

“Goal- focused individuals” perform better than those who are not goal focused. Non-goal focused individuals can be described as drifters. Drifting in a stormy sea is a dangerous activity. Sit down tonight and work out a series of progressive goals.

Step Two: Plan

Then, write detailed “Plans-of-action” relating to the achievement of the goals that you wrote out in step one. A goal without a detailed set of written instructions (plans) is no more than a fantasy. A goal together with a detailed set of written instructions is the beginning of creative and adaptive change. When you have finished setting your goals (what it is that you want), then gather the team together and build the very best, intelligently written plans that you are capable of. Spend all day on it if you have to. Failure to write a detailed plan proves that you are not serious enough. You do not merit a top prize.

Step Three: Action

Then, take action on the plan. Take immediate, persistent, dedicated and consistent action on the plan. This is where many fail. How many people do you know who:

• Have exercise plans they do not follow
• Diet plans they don’t keep to
• Business Plans that they never actually start.
• Big promises backed up with NO action

Failure to take action on a plan is the most common fault. This fault is due to:

• Fear of failure
• The natural inertia of the human spirit that causes people to “put things off till tomorrow”.

Overcome this error. Once you have your written plan, use your personal initiative to drive yourself into ACTION. – Even in the face of difficulties. Failure to act will make your plans meaningless. Without the ability to make yourself work, you risk  becoming a victim of change.

Step Four: Feedback

Then, gather the feedback. When you act on your plan you will find two things will happen:

• Some parts of your plan work well.
• Some parts of your plan do NOT work well.

This is because your original plan was not perfect, because YOU are not perfect. Do not worry. This is normal for all human beings. Instead of worrying, take the elements of the plan that are not working well, and analyse them. Bring the team back together and apply your creative intelligence to this question:

How can we correct the errors that must have been present in our original plan?

Derive your best answer to the above question. Apply all your powers of logic and creativity. When you have your answer, take step five

Step Five: Adapt

Adapt your plan using the information and ideas that you gained in step four. Sit down and write “PLAN NUMBER TWO”.

1. Failure to analyse your mistakes will cause you to fail.
2. Failure to re write your plans will cause you to fail.
3. Repeating what did not work last time will cause you to fail.

Instead, reverse these trends:

1. Analyse your mistakes and correct them.
2. Re- write your plans and improve them.
3. Come back stronger with a better plan.

Then go to step six.

Step Six: Repeat

When you have your new plan, repeat the process. Go back with your improved plan to step three. Take immediate, persistent, dedicated and consistent action on the second third, fourth plan.

Repeat, repeat, repeat – until final victory is yours!

Summary

Change is the only universal constant.

• Do not be passive in the face of change.
• Be active in the face of change.

In order for you to effectively manage a changing business environment, you need to first

• Take the initiative:

In order to take the initiative, follow this six step process.

1. Purpose – Develop a clear set of progressive goals for the next three, six, or twelve month.

2. Plan – Write detailed plans of action relating to the achievement of the goals stated in step one.

3. Actions – Take immediate, persistent, dedicated and consistent action on the plan.

4. Feedback – Gather the feedback.

5. Adapt – Adapt your plan using the information and ideas that you gained in step four.

6. Repeat – Repeat, repeat, repeat – And final victory will be yours!

Chris Farmer is the leader of The Corporate Coach Group, who provide UK management training courses, and a published author in Business Coaching.

All good things had to come to the end and we parted ways (I quit without notice because they wouldn’t let me work with my ear piercing in, my first experience with dress code policies). Things have changed a bit in 11 years. What was once a beloved but tacky regional restaurant chain has become the fast food iteration of the “Eat Local” movement.

Burgerville (based in my hometown of Vancouver, WA) has become a powerhouse of the Northwest casual cuisine scene. From hipsters and hippies to cube dwellers and suburbanites, I’ve found few that really dislike the joint and even less that have never experienced it. Not to mention that they are an interesting case in business transparency.

Burgerville started off by naming suppliers of their products and opening both themselves and their partners to scrutiny. Guess what though? It wasn’t the end of the world. People felt better about what they were eating.

Now they’ve attracted attention for another bit of transparency: nutrition labeling based on what you order. Cabel’s Blog posted a copy of his receipt and it was picked up by A Hamburger Today (one of my favorite food blogs for obvious reasons).

So you can see that he not only ordered a halibut sandwich but that he removed tarter. And those sweet potato fries? Better in the fiber category but bad everywhere else in comparison to regular french fries.

While other companies put their nutrition information on weird parts of a website or in little pamphlets with tiny printing, Burgerville puts it right where it counts: in your face, before you eat it.

And yes, people who know me know that I am against mandatory laws about these sorts of things. But using labeling and transparency as a key differentiator in your marketing strategy? I really love it. Especially when none of your competitors can roll out anything close to this in a timely manner.

Put information into your customer’s hands, respect their intelligence and let their informed wants guide you to better products. How hard can it be if a regional burger chain is leading the way?

I get it. I can’t think of too many people that haven’t been impacted by breast cancer in some way. So yes, awareness is good. It seems like companies have gone a little overboard on the using the awareness month to hawk their own products though. So what do I go to the store to find?

Pepsi + Pink + Obama-like logo and message = Success? I don't think so.

Of course, I came to find out that it wasn’t just Pepsi but a bunch of products in my local Fred Meyer store (a subsidiary of Kroger). The program aims to give three million to breast cancer. Sweet, right?

Riding The Line

How do you ride the line between promoting awareness and promoting your brand (for promoting awareness)? Can you do both effectively or will it always come off as transparent and pathetic? Should we expect companies to do good things without having to promote the crap out of it?

And not that this is the component of this particular promotion but how good is a company that will donate some proceeds of the sale to a charity? So if you’re willing to buy our product, then we’ll donate it (oh, and we’ll throw in the fine print that we won’t donate more than a few thousand bucks).

The Real Problem

If people start to become cynical about a company’s charitable donations, will companies stop donating money to these causes? And if they become cynical about partnerships between companies and charities, will the associated charities see a lowered reputation? The real problem is that the charities could potentially suffer from cynicism and companies that pull out of their causes. Companies don’t need charities to hawk their wares but charities often need all of the promotion they can get.

What do you think about companies using good causes to promote their products? What works and what doesn’t?

Let’s not fool ourselves: the best case scenario is your exit interview actually provides new information because your company management is inept at figuring out what should already be known. That’s the best case scenario!

Acing The Exit Interview

You know what most books and websites say about doing well in an exit interview as the departing employee? Don’t say anything negative. And you know what I say to that? It is absolutely correct. Negative information can get back to the manager (no matter what the HR person promises you). In fact, unless you are leaving a department with a ton of turnover, I would guarantee that anything specifically negative mentioned gets back to the original manager.

Now this may not mean you burned a bridge there. If they are a good manager, they would take any negative feedback and try to improve. But remember back to why I said you were doing the exit interview? Company management is trying to compensate because they can’t figure out the basics (like why employees are leaving). So maybe, just maybe, we’re talking about the type of manager that won’t take your feedback in the best way possible.

Prevention Just Sounds Good

So when exit interviews fail to accomplish their goal (or they do manage to accomplish their goal only to be left with no solution), some in HR will talk about taking preventative steps in order to stop the mass exodus from your organization. They’ll take what little information they got and try to do something with it. Most likely this will include some combination of succession planning, compensation/benefits analysis and adjustment, new training and development programs, and/or adding some new type of benefit program (tuition reimbursement is a common one).

The real problem is twofold. The first one is that it will take forever to get any of these changes approved and that fact alone won’t be communicated with current employees. So if you are actually working on something that you know is a problem and it will take six months or a year, people should at least know that you’re aware of it. The other problem is that management training is rarely a part of the solution because it is rarely mentioned as a problem.

Here’s a clue by four: nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is leaving your organization because of a tuition reimbursement plan. Yes, that is a good benefit that you can offer but it isn’t a make or break deal buster. And it is something you can fix with more money if it really is an issue.

The Real Solution

You need real managers. Ones that know their employees well, that have open lines of communication, that have some basic investigation and analytical skills, and don’t need an exit interview to be told why people are leaving. I’m not even talking about leadership here. These should be basic skills that we can equip any manager with. If we aren’t talking about that, we’re not talking about any realistic, long term solution.

All of those other things are band aids. Yes, your compensation should be adjusted if it is out of whack. Yes, your benefits should be adjusted if they are a problem. But making those adjustments means nothing if you do not have competent managers who are properly equipped with the skills necessary to understand your workforce’s critical needs. If you had that, why would you need an exit interview?